Yahootrips.com

The timeline behind yahootrips.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 Yahoo! Inc. v. Junlong Zheng c/o OnlineNIC Claim Number: FA0802001142567 PARTIES Complainant is Yahoo! Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kelly, of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., District of Colombia, USA. Respondent is Junlong Zheng c/o OnlineNIC (“Respondent”), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <yahootrips.com>, registered with Onlinenic, 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 Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 5, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 6, 2008. On February 13, 2008, Onlinenic, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <yahootrips.com> domain name is registered with Onlinenic, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Onlinenic, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Onlinenic, 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 February 15, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 6, 2008 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@yahootrips.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 12, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (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 <yahootrips.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <yahootrips.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <yahootrips.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Yahoo! Inc., is a business that offers a variety of online services to Internet users. As part of these services, Complainant has offered tools and information for researching and planning recreational and business travel. Complainant holds multiple registrations for its YAHOO! mark with the USPTO and other governmental authorities. Complainant provided extrinsic proof of the registration of its YAHOO! mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), which was registered on August 7, 1997 (Reg. No. 1,072,468). The <yahootrips.com> domain name was first registered on June 5, 2007, and Respondent acquired the disputed domain name on September 27, 2007. Respondent has failed to activate a website under the disputed domain name. 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 holds multiple registrations for its YAHOO! mark with the USPTO and other governmental authorities. The Panel finds this is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in its YAHOO! mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Inertia 3D, FA 1118154 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 18, 2008) (“Complainant asserts rights in the mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This registration sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); 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 <yahootrips.com> domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s YAHOO! mark with the deletion of the exclamation point and the addition of the descriptive term “trips.” The term “trips” is descriptive of Complainant because Complainant’s business includes providing tools and information for Internet users planning business or recreational trips. The deletion of the exclamation point is irrelevant because exclamation points are not valid characters for domain names. Additionally, panels have generally held the addition of generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”) such as “.com” are irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <yahootrips.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark pursuant to 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 Yahoo! Inc. v. Casino Yahoo, Inc., D2000-0660 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2000) (finding the domain name <casinoyahoo.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has alleged Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant presents a prima facie case supporting these allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to establish it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to support its allegations. Respondent failed to submit a response to these proceedings. Therefore, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). However, the Panel will inspect the record and determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). 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 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.”). Respondent’s <yahootrips.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website. The Panel finds Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bloomberg L.P. v. Sandhu, FA 96261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that no rights or legitimate interests can be found when the respondent fails to use disputed domain names in any way); 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). Also, there is no evidence in the record or WHOIS information indicating Respondent is commonly known by the <yahootrips.com> domain name. The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Junlong Zhen,” and Complainant asserts it has not authorized Respondent to use its YAHOO! mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See MB Fin. Bank, N.A. v. mbfinancialmortgage.com, FA 405073 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 11, 2005) (“[D]espite being listed in the WHOIS information as ‘mbfinancialmortgage.com,’ Respondent is not commonly known by this domain name nor is [it] authorized to register domain names featuring Complainant’s MB FINANCIAL mark.”); see also UVA Solar GmbH & Co. K.G. v. Kragh, D2001-0373 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that a former distributor of the complainant’s products maintained rights and legitimate interests in respect to a domain name during the duration of its distributorship agreement, but such rights and interests ceased upon termination of the agreement). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s <yahootrips.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website. The Panel finds Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make an active use of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith). The Panel finds 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 <yahootrips.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist Dated: March 25, 2008 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.