Aaa-insurance.net, Aaatravelservice.com, Tripleainsuranceagency.com

The timeline behind aaa-insurance.net

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 The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. Transure Enterprise Ltd. c/o Host Master Claim Number: FA0811001234734 PARTIES Complainant is The American Automobile Association, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Hope Hamilton of Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is Transure Enterprise Ltd. c/o Host Master (“Respondent”), British Virgin Islands. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <aaa-insurance.net>, <aaatravelservice.com> and <tripleainsuranceagency.com>, registered with Above, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically November 18, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint November 19, 2008. On November 24, 2008, Above, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <aaa-insurance.net>, <aaatravelservice.com> and <tripleainsuranceagency.com> domain names are registered with Above, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Above, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the Above, Inc. registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On December 2, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 22, 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@aaa-insurance.net, postmaster@aaatravelservice.com and postmaster@tripleainsuranceagency.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On December 26, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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. The disputed domain names that Respondent registered, <aaa-insurance.net> and <aaatravelservice.com>, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AAA mark. Respondent’s <tripleainsuranceagency.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRIPLE A mark. 2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <aaa-insurance.net>, <aaatravelservice.com> and <tripleainsuranceagency.com> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <aaa-insurance.net>, <aaatravelservice.com> and <tripleainsuranceagency.com> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, American Automobile Association, Inc., uses the AAA mark and TRIPLE A mark in connection with automobile and insurance information, products and services. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for both the AAA mark and the TRIPLE A mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 829,265 issued May, 23, 1967 and Reg. No. 1,168,790 issued September 8, 1981 respectively). Respondent registered the <aaa-insurance.net> domain name May 30, 2008; the <aaatravelservice.com> domain name July 6, 2008; and the <tripleainsuranceagency.com> domain name June 14, 2008. All three disputed domain names resolve to “pay-per-click” advertising websites. The resolving websites each display links and advertisements to various third parties, many of whom offer products and services that seek to compete directly with those offered under Complainant’s AAA and TRIPLE A marks. Additionally, Respondent offered to sell the <aaatravelservice.com> domain name to Complainant for US $400. 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." Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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 to and/or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant established rights in both the AAA mark and the TRIPLE A mark through its registration of these marks with the USPTO pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s federal trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The <aaa-insurance.net> and <aaatravelservice.com> domain names each contain Complainant’s AAA mark in its entirety and either the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net” or “.com.” The <aaa-insurance.net> domain name utilizes a hyphen after Complainant’s mark and incorporates the term “insurance.” The <aaatravelservice.com> domain name follows Complainant’s AAA mark with the phrase “travel service.” As an initial matter, the Panel disregards the use of hyphens and gTLDs as irrelevant to its analysis under 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). Next, the Panel finds that the incorporation of either the terms “insurance” or “travel service” fail to adequately differentiate the disputed domain names because these terms specifically describe the services offered under the AAA mark. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the addition of the generic term “finance,” which described the complainant’s financial services business, as well as a gTLD, did not sufficiently distinguish the respondent’s disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Panel finds that the <aaa-insurance.net> and <aaatravelservice.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AAA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The <tripleainsuranceagency.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s TRIPLE A mark in its entirety followed by the descriptive term “insurance agency” and the gTLD “.com.” As previously established, the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant to these proceedings. Moreover, the incorporation of the term “insurance agency” does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name because this accurately describes some of the services offered under the TRIPLE A mark. For these reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <tripleainsuranceagency.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRIPLE A mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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).”); see also Miller Brewing Co. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 243606 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2004) (finding that the <millerbeers.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s MILLER mark, because “[t]he addition of a descriptive term that describes Complainant’s business to Complainant’s registered mark, does not remove the domain from the realm of confusing similarity with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights to or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names before the Panel may proceed to consider the Complaint on its merits. See Lush LTD v. Lush Environs, FA 96217 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2001) (finding that even when the respondent does file a response, the complainant must allege facts, which if true, would establish that the respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Complainant met this burden. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Document Techs., Inc. v. Int’l Elec. Commc’ns Inc., D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000) (“Although Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove the presence of this element (along with the other two), once a Complainant makes out a prima facie showing, the burden of production on this factor shifts to the Respondent to rebut the showing by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.”). No reply has been received in this case. Accordingly, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. However, the Panel still examines the record in consideration of the elements listed under Policy ¶ 4(c). See 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.”); 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). The WHOIS information for each of the disputed domain names identifies Respondent as “Transure Enterprise Ltd. c/o Host Master.” Complainant contends that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use either the AAA or TRIPLE A marks in any way. Without any further information in the record, the Panel may find that Respondent is not commonly known by either the <aaa-insurance.net>, <aaatravelservice.com> or <tripleainsuranceagency.com> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Each of the disputed domain names resolves to a website displaying links and advertisements to various third-parties, many of whom who are direct competitors of Complainant. The Panel presumes this use commercially benefits Respondent through “pay-per-click” or other similar referral fees. As a consequence, the Panel finds that Respondent has not made 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) with any of the disputed domain name. 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 Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not 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 also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The disputed domain names each resolve to commercial websites featuring links and advertisements to direct competitors of Complainant. The Panel finds that this supports findings that Respondent intended to disrupt the business of Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using each of the <aaa-insurance.net>, <aaatravelservice.com> and <tripleainsuranceagency.com> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors). Moreover, as previously established, the Panel may presume that Respondent is commercially benefiting from its current use of the disputed domain names. The Panel considers this to be further evidence that Respondent registered and is using the <aaa-insurance.net>, <aaatravelservice.com> and <tripleainsuranceagency.com> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See BPI Comm’cns, Inc. v. Boogie TV LLC, FA 105755 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2002) (“Complainants are in the music and entertainment business. The links associated with <billboard.tv> and <boogie.tv> appear to be in competition for the same Internet users, which Complainants are trying to attract with the <billboard.com> web site. There is clearly a likelihood of confusion between <billboard.tv> and BILLBOARD as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or of a product or service on the web site.”); see also Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). And finally, in correspondence with Complainant, Respondent offered to sell the <aaatravelservice.com> domain name for US $400. With regards to the <aaatravelservice.com> domain name, the Panel considers this additional evidence that Respondent registered and is using this domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding the respondent's offer to sell the domain name at issue to the complainant was evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN 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 <aaa-insurance.net>, <aaatravelservice.com> and <tripleainsuranceagency.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist Dated: January 9, 2009 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.