Churchillinsurancclaims.com + 3 more domains

The timeline behind churchillinsurancclaims.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd. and Direct Line Insurance plc v. New Alphabet Ltd. Claim Number: FA0803001170031 PARTIES Complainant is Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd. and Direct Line Insurance plc (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is New Alphabet Ltd. (“Respondent”), United Kingdom. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <churchillinsurancclaims.com>, <directlineclaimsite.com>, <directlinevalidation.com> and <directlinevalidations.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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. Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 27, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 28, 2008. On March 27, 2008, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <churchillinsurancclaims.com>, <directlineclaimsite.com>, <directlinevalidation.com> and <directlinevalidations.com> domain names are registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 March 31, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 21, 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@churchillinsurancclaims.com, postmaster@directlineclaimsite.com, postmater@directlinevalidation.com and postmaster@directlinevalidations.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On April 28, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <churchillinsurancclaims.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHURCHILL mark and Respondent’s <directlineclaimsite.com>, <directlinevalidation.com> and <directlinevalidations.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIRECT LINE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <churchillinsurancclaims.com>, <directlineclaimsite.com>, <directlinevalidation.com> and <directlinevalidations.com> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <churchillinsurancclaims.com>, <directlineclaimsite.com>, <directlinevalidation.com> and <directlinevalidations.com> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The entities filing collectively as Complainant, Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd. and Direct Line Insurance plc, are part of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc. Complainant offers insurance products and services under the CHURCHILL and DIRECTLINE marks. Complainant’s CHURCHILL mark was first registered with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) on October 28, 1997 (Reg. No. 2,042,931). Complainant’s DIRECT LINE mark was first registered with the UKIPO on September 6, 1991 (Reg. No. 1,392,344). Respondent registered the disputed domain names on July 3, 2007. The disputed domain names all redirect Internet users to the <thereplacemetnservice.co.uk> domain name where Respondent promotes insurance claim management products and services that compete 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 has provided extrinsic evidence of its registration of the CHURCHILL and DIRECT LINE marks with the UKIPO. The Panel finds Complainant’s registration of these marks with the UKIPO is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the CHURCHILL and DIRECT LINE marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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."); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction). Respondent’s disputed domain names each contain Complainant’s CHURCHILL or DIRECT LINE mark with the addition of generic or descriptive terms or the addition of misspellings of generic or descriptive terms. The Panel finds Respondent’s addition of generic or descriptive terms, or their misspellings do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s marks. Additionally the disputed domain names each contain the generic top-level domain “.com” which the Panel finds is irrelevant in determining whether a disputed domain name is similar to a mark because a top-level domain is a required element of ever domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also 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 Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); 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 names. Complainant is required to produce a prima facie case in support of its allegations and then the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds Complainant has adequately established a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel, however, will examine the record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See 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).”); 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 disputed domain names redirect Internet users to the <thereplacementservice.co.uk> domain name where Respondent promotes insurance claims management products and services which directly compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds Respondent’s diversionary use of the disputed domain names 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)(ii). See DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v. BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”); see also Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services). Additionally, Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “New Alphabet Ltd.,” and the record does not indicate Complainant has authorized Respondent to use its marks. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s disputed domain names promote insurance related products and services which directly compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds Respondent’s use constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); see also Surface Prot. Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between the complainant and the respondent, the respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt the complainant's business and create user confusion). Respondent is using the website resolving from its confusingly similar disputed domain names to provide Internet users with competing insurance related products and services. Respondent presumably profits from this use. Additionally, Respondent’s uses of Complainant’s marks create a likelihood of confusion regarding Complainant’s affiliation with the content resolving from the disputed domain names. The Panel finds Respondent is attempting to profit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s marks. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s actions constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that the complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site); see also 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).”). 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 <churchillinsurancclaims.com>, <directlineclaimsite.com>, <directlinevalidation.com> and <directlinevalidations.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist Justice, Supreme Court, NY, (Ret.) Dated: May 5, 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.