Wwwunivision.com

The timeline behind wwwunivision.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 Univision Communications Inc. v. Mikhail Sidorov c/o Sidorov Claim Number: FA0807001216692 PARTIES Complainant is Univision Communications Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jorge Arciniega, of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Mikkhail Sidorov c/o Sidorov (“Respondent”), Russia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <wwwunivision.com>, registered with Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.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. Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 22, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 23, 2008. On July 23, 2008, Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wwwunivision.com> domain name is registered with Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.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 31, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 20, 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@wwwunivision.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 28, 2008, 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 <wwwunivision.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNIVISION mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwunivision.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwunivision.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Univision Communications Inc., operates a Spanish-language media company under its UNIVISION mark. Complainant first registered its UNIVISION mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on November 20, 1990 (Reg. No. 1,624,073). Complainant has provided evidence of multiple additional registrations of its UNIVISION mark with the USPTO. On July 22, 2008, Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays links to various third-party websites that are unrelated to 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 evidence of multiple registrations of its UNIVISION mark with the USPTO. The Panel finds these registrations sufficiently establish Complainant’s rights in its UNIVISION mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive [or] have acquired secondary meaning.”); 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 <wwwunivision.com> domain name contains Complainant’s UNIVISION mark with the addition of the letters “www.” The Panel finds this addition constitutes typosquatting because it represents a common typographical error, namely the omission of a period between the “www,” and the domain name. Thus, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. S1A, FA 128683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2002) (holding confusing similarity has been established because the prefix “www” does not sufficiently differentiate the <wwwneimanmarcus.com> domain name from the complainant's NEIMAN-MARCUS mark). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwunivision.com> domain name. The Policy requires that Complainant produce a prima facie case to support these assertions, and the Panel finds Complainant has done so in these proceedings. After Complainant has provided a sufficient prima facie case, the burden then shifts to Respondent to establish otherwise. Respondent failed to submit a response to these proceedings, thus the Panel may infer Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); 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 contends Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Mikhail Sidorov c/o Sidorov,” and the record does not indicate Complainant has authorized Respondent to use its UNIVISION mark in any way. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests 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); see also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected). Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying links to third-party websites unrelated to Complainant’s business. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not 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 WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy); see also Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (“Respondent's use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant's business does not represent 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).”). Additionally, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to engage in typosquatting. The Panel finds this use of the disputed domain name is evidence Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name, a typosquatted version of the complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in and of itself that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name vis á vis the complainant; see also Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2000-0330 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (finding that fair use does not apply where the domain names are misspellings of the complainant's mark). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain name to profit by displaying links to unrelated third-party websites, presumably through the receipt of click-through fees. The Panel finds Respondent is attempting to profit from the goodwill Complainant has established in its UNIVISION mark. Also, Respondent is attempting to confuse Internet users as to the affiliation of Complainant with these third-party websites. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Hancock Fabrics, Inc. v. Active Advantage, Inc., FA 204111 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s use of the <hancockfabric.com> domain name, a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s HANCOCK FABRICS mark, to redirect Internet traffic to a website that provides a selection of jokes demonstrates Respondent’ bad faith use of the disputed domain name because Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website, which evidences bad faith registration and use under 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.”). Additionally, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to capitalize on Internet users’ typographical omission of a period between the letters “www,” and Complainant’s UNIVISION mark. The Panel finds this act of typosquatting is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period after the ‘www’ portion of [a] web-address,” which was evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of 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 <wwwunivision.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist Dated: September 11, 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.