Clickfarm.com

The timeline behind clickfarm.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 ClickFarm Interactive Inc. v. TRFCN Inc. c/o Domain, Administrator Claim Number: FA0809001223528 PARTIES Complainant is ClickFarm Interactive Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Christin Dasek-Kaine, of Corporate Counsel Group LLP, Missouri, USA. Respondent is TRFCN Inc. c/o Domain, Administrator (“Respondent”), Michigan, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <clickfarm.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, 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 September 8, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 10, 2008. On September 9, 2008, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <clickfarm.com> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, 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 September 17, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 7, 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@clickfarm.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On October 16, 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 <clickfarm.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s CLICKFARM mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <clickfarm.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <clickfarm.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, ClickFarm Interactive Inc., is a company whose primary business is based on registering domain names which incorporate Complainant’s CLICKFARM mark. Complainant registered the CLICKFARM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,128,112 issued August 8, 2006, filed April 19, 2005). Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 26, 2004. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website offering third-party links to other websites. 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 Respondent’s domain name registration predates the filing of Complainant’s trademark registration. However, this is irrelevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as this element of the Policy merely requires Respondent to demonstrate rights in a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name. Therefore, Complainant has sufficient rights in the CLICKFARM mark for the purposes of satisfying 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 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."). Complainant may also prove common law rights in the mark to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that the complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist); see also British Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (noting that the Policy “does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names” and applying the Policy to “unregistered trademarks and service marks”). However, Complainant alleges it had established common law rights in the CLICKFARM mark dating back to its first use in commerce in March 1, 2005. Complainant has not provided any evidence to establish common law rights in the mark prior to this 2005 date. Since Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004, the Panel finds it unnecessary to make a conclusory finding regarding Complainant’s common law rights, because in any case they do not predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent’s <clickfarm.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s CLICKFARM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants . . . ."). Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s CLICKFARM mark. The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If a complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that rights or legitimate interests exist pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In this case, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case and the burden is shifted to Respondent. 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 Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist). By failing to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 Law Soc’y of Hong Kong v. Domain Strategy, Inc., HK-0200015 (ADNDRC Feb. 12, 2003) (“A respondent is not obligated to participate in a domain name dispute . . . but the failure to participate leaves a respondent vulnerable to the inferences that flow naturally from the assertions of the complainant and the tribunal will accept as established assertions by the complainant that are not unreasonable.”). However, the Panel will examine the evidence on record against the applicable ¶ 4(c) elements before making a final determination with regards to Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests. Complainant contends that Respondent is neither commonly known by, nor licensed to register the <clickfarm.com> domain name. Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Domain, Administrator domains@trfcn.com,” thus giving no affirmative evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See 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.”); see also 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). Respondent is using the <clickfarm.com> domain name to display hyperlinks advertising third-party websites. The Panel infers that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to earn click-through fees, and thus finds that Respondent has not made 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). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lin Shun Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that using a domain name to direct Internet traffic to a website featuring pop-up advertisements and links to various third-party websites is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the registrant presumably receives compensation for each misdirected Internet user); see also Trans Global Tours, LLC v. Yong Li, FA 196166 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because it was diverting Internet users to a search engine with pop-up advertisements). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant has used the CLICKFARM mark in connection with its domain name registration business since 2005. Complainant has not provided any evidence it possessed common law rights or other trademark rights in its CLICKFARM mark prior to this date. Since the available WHOIS information establishes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 26, 2004, which is before Complainant has established rights in the mark, the Panel finds Respondent could not have registered the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Interep Nat'l Radio Sales, Inc. v. Internet Domain Names, Inc., D2000-0174 (WIPO May 26, 2000) (finding no bad faith where the respondent registered the domain prior to the complainant’s use of the mark); see also Open Sys. Computing AS v. degli Alessandri, D2000-1393 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding no bad faith where the respondent registered the domain name in question before application and commencement of use of the trademark by the complainant). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has not been satisfied. DECISION Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <clickfarm.com> domain name REMAIN with Respondent. Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist Dated: October 28, 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.