Bullex.com

The timeline behind bullex.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 BullEx, Inc. v. JinHakYoo Claim Number: FA0909001284558 PARTIES Complainant is BullEx, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Steven L. Rinehart, Utah, USA. Respondent is JinHakYoo (“Respondent”), Korea. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bullex.com>, registered with Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her she knowledge 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 September 15, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint September 17, 2009. The Complaint was submitted in both Korean and English. On September 17, 2009, Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bullex.com> domain name is registered with Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com verified that Respondent is bound by the Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com 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 September 29, 2009, a Korean Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 19, 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@bullex.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 23, 2009, 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 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. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Korean language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. The domain name that Respondent registered, <bullex.com>, is identical to Complainant’s BULLEX mark. 2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <bullex.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <bullex.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, BullEx Inc., manufactures, markets and distributes its safety training systems including proper use of fire suppression systems during emergencies. Complainant began its business in 2003 and was incorporated with the New York Secretary of State on April 27, 2004. Complainant has operated its products and services under its BULLEX mark and at the <bullexsafety.com> domain name. Complainant has provided evidence of customer correspondence, Internet traffic numbers for its <bullexsafety.com> domain, and customer invoices all relating to its use of the BULLEX mark in connection with the sale of safety training systems. Respondent, JinHakYoo, registered the disputed domain name December 28, 2004. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that includes links to products and services that compete with Complainant’s safety training, as well as to links unrelated to Complainant’s business. Respondent has offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for $8,650 and has also offered the domain for sale to the general public on an online domain name auction website. 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 Complainant has not registered its BULLEX mark with a governmental trademark authority; however, registration of a mark is not necessary to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Instead, a complainant may demonstrate common law rights in a mark if it provides sufficient evidence of secondary meaning associated with the mark. See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark); see also Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2001) (“The Policy does not require that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist.”). Complainant contends it has used its BULLEX mark in commerce since 2003 in connection with providing safety training products and services. Complainant has provided evidence of its incorporation with the state of New York under the name Bullex, Inc. on April 27, 2004. Complainant has operated its business under its BULLEX mark and at the <bullexsafety.com> domain name. Complainant has provided evidence of customer correspondence, Internet traffic numbers for its <bullexsafety.com> domain, and customer invoices all relating to its use of the BULLEX mark in connection with the sale of safety training systems. The Panel finds this information and evidence sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in the BULLEX domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), and that such use predates Respondent’s December 28, 2004 registration of the disputed domain name. See Kahn Dev. Co. v. RealtyPROshop.com, FA 568350 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2006) (holding that the complainant’s VILLAGE AT SANDHILL mark acquired secondary meaning among local consumers sufficient to establish common law rights where the complainant had been continuously and extensively promoting a real estate development under the mark for several years); see also Stellar Call Ctrs. Pty Ltd. v. Bahr, FA 595972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 19, 2005) (finding that the complainant established common law rights in the STELLAR CALL CENTRES mark because the complainant demonstrated that its mark had acquired secondary meaning). Respondent’s <bullex.com> domain name contains Complainant’s BULLEX mark in its entirety with the sole addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because a top-level domain is a requirement of every domain. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to the complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights to or Legitimate Interests Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Based upon the allegations made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In such circumstances, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. Although Respondent did not respond to the Complaint, the Panel still examines the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Mason Cos., Inc. v. Chan, FA 1216166 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 4, 2008) (“The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the [disputed domain] name. Thus, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have such rights or interests.”); see also 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). The WHOIS domain name registration information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “JinHakYoo” which does not reflect any similarity to the disputed domain name. In addition, Complainant has stated that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s BULLEX mark. Therefore, based on the evidence in the record, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); 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). Respondent is using the disputed domain names to display links to websites offering various third-party links for safety training in competition with Complainant. Thus, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and is not legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding that the respondent was not using a disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by redirecting Internet users to a commercial search engine website with links to multiple websites that may be of interest to the complainant’s customers and presumably earning “click-through fees” in the process); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (holding that using an identical or confusingly similar domain name to earn click-through fees via sponsored links to a complainant’s competitors 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)). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for $8,650 and to the general public. Respondent’s offer to sell the identical disputed domain name for an amount in excess of its out-of-pocket registration costs supports findings of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. AchievementTec, Inc., FA 192316 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (finding the respondent’s offer to sell the domain name for $2,000 sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)); see also Dollar Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v. Jongho, FA 95391 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 11, 2000) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith by registering the domain name with the intent to transfer it to the complainant for $3,000, an amount in excess of its out of pocket costs). Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer links to third-party websites competing with Complainant’s safety training products and services disrupts Complainant’s business. The Panel finds this disruption demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) when the disputed domain name resolved to a website that displayed commercial links to the websites of the complainant’s competitors in the financial services industry). Respondent is using the identical disputed domain name to presumably collect profits through the receipt of click-through fees for the third-party competing links displayed on the resolving website. Internet users may become confused as to whether the resolving content is affiliated with Complainant’s products and services under its BULLEX mark. The Panel finds Respondent’s attempt to profit from this confusion and the goodwill Complainant has developed in its BULLEX mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Asbury Auto. Group, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 958542 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant’s business would likely lead to confusion among Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships, and was therefore evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (“The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because Respondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”). 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 <bullex.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist Dated: November 6, 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.