Cnn-video.com

The timeline behind cnn-video.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 Cable News Network, Inc. f/k/a Cable News Network LP, LLLP v. Bliss Lose Claim Number: FA0807001215553 PARTIES Complainant is Cable News Network, Inc. f/k/a Cable News Network LP, LLLP (“Complainant”), represented by Emily S. Mechem, of Arent Fox LLP, Washington D.C., USA. Respondent is Bliss Lose (“Respondent”), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cnn-video.com>, registered with Tucows Inc. 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. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 15, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 16, 2008. On July 16, 2008, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <cnn-video.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows 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 July 17, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 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@cnn-video.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 13, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 <cnn-video.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CNN mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <cnn-video.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <cnn-video.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is an international media and entertainment company that is one of the world’s leading news and information providers. For more than twenty years, Complainant has been providing news and information services under the CNN mark. It provides cable network, radio, and online news services across the globe, readily available to over one billion people. As a part of its online services, Complainant operates a website at the <cnn.com> domain name. Under which, there is a further link labeled “CNN Videos,” to which Internet users are directed to a listing of video streaming news and entertainment services. Complainant has registered the CNN mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,594,839 issued May 22, 1990). Respondent’s <cnn-video.com> domain name was registered on October 28, 2006. It resolves to a commercial website incorporating Complainant’s CNN mark and stylized logo. It sells video conversion software and indicates that the owner of the site is “A-Z Software, Inc.” 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 The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently established rights in the CNN mark through registration with the USPTO pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See VICORP Rests., Inc. v. Triantafillos, FA 485933 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the BAKERS SQUARE mark by registering it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”); see also Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (“Complainant owns a United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’) registration issued September 5, 2000 for the RBK mark. This trademark registration is adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The <cnn-video.com> domain name contains Complainant’s CNN mark in its entirety followed by a hyphen, the descriptive word “video,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The inclusions of a hyphen and a gTLD are irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. Moreover, the addition of the word “video” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark because it directly describes and correlates to a medium in which Complainant provides most of its services under the CNN mark. For all of these reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy); see also Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Easynet Ltd, FA 944330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (“The additions of generic words with an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business and a gTLD renders the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests To begin a Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) analysis, Complainant must have first established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that this threshold has been met and that the attention and responsibility accordingly shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”); see also SEMCO Prods., LLC v. dmg world media (uk) ltd, FA 913881 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (concluding that under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c), a complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name before the burden shifts to the respondent to show otherwise). However, Respondent has failed to reply to the Complaint. Therefore, the Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For the purposes of clarity though, the Panel will continue to examine the record in consideration of the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c). See Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). Complainant asserts that it is not affiliated with nor has ever granted permission to Respondent to use the CNN mark in any way. Moreover, Complainant points out that there is nothing else in the record, including the WHOIS information which indicates that Respondent is or ever was commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Bliss Lose” and the disputed domain name’s own website states that its owner is “A-Z Software, Inc.” Without any additional evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <cnn-video.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). The <cnn-video.com> domain name is being used by Respondent in connection with a commercial website that offers for sale software products. The disputed domain name also prominently features Complainant’s stylized CNN mark and logo. It is apparent that Respondent is attempting to financially benefit from use of Complainant’s mark. As a result, the Panel finds that Respondent is utilizing the disputed domain name for neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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 also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Nadim, FA 127720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark to redirect Internet users to a domain name featuring magazine subscriptions was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name). The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and resolves to a website selling video conversion software. The websites utilize in advertising and selling such software bold displays of Complainant’s stylized mark and logo. The Panel finds this to be evidence that Respondent is attempting to commercially profit off of the goodwill and services associated by consumers and Internet users with Complainant’s mark. As such the Panel considers this to be conclusive evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Tower Labs. Ltd. v. Seltzer, FA 791325 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2006) (concluding that the respondent registered and was using the <bromoseltzer.com> domain name in bad faith because it displayed a logo similar to the complainant’s BROMO SELTZER mark, which was likely to confuse the public as to the source of the material exhibited at the respondent’s website); see also Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 29, 2005) (“[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). The <cnn-video.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s CNN mark and resolves to a website prominently featuring Complainant’s stylized CNN mark and logo. The CNN mark has been used by Complainant around the world in markets representing over one billion people. For the purposes of a UDRP proceeding, Complainant’s CNN mark is adequately famous and well-known. Moreover, the mark is being implemented by Respondent in an infringing way. Although there may be legitimate situations in which the disputed domain name could be utilized by another than Complainant, those circumstances do not exist here. The Panel finds that the notoriety and use of an exact copy of Complainant’s stylized mark constitutes evidence of Respondent’s constructive notice of Complainant’s rights in its mark. Since Respondent has failed to provide additional evidence or counter Complainant’s arguments, the Panel finds that Respondent had sufficient notice of Complainant’s rights in its mark before registering and while using the disputed domain name, providing additional evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <cnn-video.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent failed to provide any evidence to controvert the complainant's allegation that it registered the domain name in bad faith and where any future use of the domain name would do nothing but cause confusion with the complainant’s mark, except in a few limited noncommercial or fair use situations, which were not present); see also Albrecht v. Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) (“The Respondent intentionally registered a domain name which uses the Complainant’s name. There is no reasonable possibility that the name ‘karlalbrecht.com’ was selected at random. There may be circumstances where such a registration could be done in good faith, but absent such evidence, the Panel can only conclude that the registration was done in bad faith.”); see also Via Rail Canada Inc. v. Mean Old Man Prods., AF-0759 (eResolution Apr. 23, 2001) (“A strong trademark, where unique because of its coined origins . . . might effectively preclude any legitimate or good faith registration or use of an identical or similar domain name.”) The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established 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 <cnn-video.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist Dated: August 26, 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.