Icq-planet.com

The timeline behind icq-planet.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 AOL LLC v. Jan Smidak d/b/a Hyperinzerce Claim Number: FA0908001279201 PARTIES Complainant is AOL LLC (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis, of Arent Fox LLP, Washington D.C., USA. Respondent is Jan Smidak d/b/a Hyperinzerce (“Respondent”), Czech Republic. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <icq-planet.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. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 12, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 13, 2009. On August 13, 2009, Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <icq-planet.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 August 18, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 8, 2009 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@icq-planet.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On September 11, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 <icq-planet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ICQ mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <icq-planet.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <icq-planet.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, AOL LLC, is a global Internet services company which provides online content, products, and services offered to consumers, publishers, and advertisers. Complainant uses the ICQ mark in connection with software, computer, and Internet-related communications and goods and services. Complainant includes the ICQ mark in domain names like <icq.com> and <icqmail.com> in connection with providing information and services on the Internet. Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its ICQ mark (i.e., Reg. No. 2,411,657 issued December 12, 2000). Complainant also holds a trademark registration for its ICQ mark with the trademark agency in the Czech Republic (Reg. No. 226,588 issued September 21, 2000). Respondent, Jan Smidak d/b/a Hyperinzerce, registered the <icq-planet.com> domain name on August 29, 2006. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that contains links to Respondent’s different unrelated commercial websites, such as a website offering cell phones and laptops. The website resolving from the <icq-planet.com> domain name also features the ICQ mark and the ICQ logo. 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 established rights in its ICQ mark through trademark registrations with the USPTO (i.e. Reg. No. 2,411,657 issued December 12, 2000) and through trademark registration with the Czech Republic trademark agency (Reg. No. 226,588 issued September 21, 2000). The Panel finds Complainant has established rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in its ICQ mark through its trademark registrations. See U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. MS Tech. Inc., FA 198898 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2003) (“[O]nce the USPTO has made a determination that a mark is registrable, by so issuing a registration, as indeed was the case here, an ICANN panel is not empowered to nor should it disturb that determination.”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark office (‘USPTO’)”). Respondent’s <icq-planet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ICQ mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark, ICQ, and adds a hyphen, the generic term “planet,” and the top-level generic domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds the additions of a hyphen, generic term, and gTLD fail to adequately distinguish the <icq-planet.com> domain name from Complainant’s mark. See 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 Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Rana, FA 304696 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2004) (finding that the addition of the generic term “collection” to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark failed to distinguish the domain name from the mark); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ICQ mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <icq-planet.com> domain name. When a complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <icq-planet.com> domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a 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). Respondent uses the <icq-planet.com> domain name to resolve to a website featuring links to Respondent’s commercial websites, some of which offer phones and laptops for sale. The resolving website also contains the ICQ mark and the ICQ logo. Respondent commercially benefits by redirecting Internet users interested in Complainant’s ICQ mark and associated services to Respondent’s commercial websites. The Panel finds such use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair uses of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)). Respondent fails to provide proof that it is commonly known by the <icq-planet.com> domain name. Respondent is neither a licensee of Complainant nor is it authorized to use the ICQ mark. The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Jan Smidak d/b/a Hyperinzerce.” Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name 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 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). Therefore, the Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s <icq-planet.com> domain name resolves to a website containing links to Respondent’s commercial websites. Some of the hyperlinks resolve to Respondent’s websites which sell laptop computers and cell phones. Respondent registered the disputed domain name (August 29, 2006), at least six years after Complainant registered the ICQ mark both with the USPTO (December 12, 2000) and the Czech Republic trademark authority (September 21, 2000). Respondent commercially profits from this redirection of Internet users interested in Complainant’s ICQ mark and Internet information services to Respondent’s unrelated websites. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar <icq-planet.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“the Panel finds the respondent is appropriating the complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use 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 <icq-planet.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: September 25, 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.