Univisionnoticias.com

The timeline behind univisionnoticias.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. Cayman Ninety Business, Domain Administrator Claim Number: FA1007001337367 PARTIES Complainant is Univision Communications Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jorge Arciniega, of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, California. Respondent is Cayman Ninety Business, Domain Administrator (“Respondent”), Cayman Islands. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <univisionnoticias.com>, registered with Rebel.com Corp. 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 July 23, 2010. On July 26, 2010, Rebel.com Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <univisionnoticias.com> domain name is registered with Rebel.com Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Rebel.com Corp. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Rebel.com Corp. 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 27, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 16, 2010 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@univisionnoticias.com. Also on July 27, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 24, 2010, 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" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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 <univisionnoticias.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNIVISION.COM mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <univisionnoticias.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <univisionnoticias.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Univision Communications Inc., is a Spanish-language media company in the United States, providing information and entertainment via television, radio, Internet and mobile outlets. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for its UNIVISION.COM and related marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”): Mark Reg. No. Date Issued NOTICIERO UNIVISION 1,610,165 August 14, 1990; UNIVISION 1,624,073 November 20, 1990; UNIVISION 1,672,807 January 21, 1992; UNIVISION 2,518,239 December 11, 2001; UNIVISION 2,518,240 December 11, 2001; UNIVISION.COM 2,518,241 December 11, 2001; UNIVISION.COM 2,528,166 January 8, 2002; UNIVISION RECORDS 2,881,179 September 7, 2004; UNIVISION MUSIC PUBLISHING 3,214,587 March 6, 2007; and UNIVISION MÓVIL 3,483,636 August 12, 2008. Respondent, Cayman Ninety Business, Domain Administrator, registered the <univisionnoticias.com> domain name on November 26, 2005. The disputed domain name resolves to a generic links-based website that features presumed pay-per-click links to a variety of unrelated and competing third-party sites. 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 owns numerous trademark registrations for its UNIVISION.COM and related marks with the USPTO: Mark Reg. No. Date Issued NOTICIERO UNIVISION 1,610,165 August 14, 1990; UNIVISION 1,624,073 November 20, 1990; UNIVISION 1,672,807 January 21, 1992; UNIVISION 2,518,239 December 11, 2001; UNIVISION 2,518,240 December 11, 2001; UNIVISION.COM 2,518,241 December 11, 2001; UNIVISION.COM 2,528,166 January 8, 2002; UNIVISION RECORDS 2,881,179 September 7, 2004; UNIVISION MUSIC PUBLISHING 3,214,587 March 6, 2007; and UNIVISION MÓVIL 3,483,636 August 12, 2008. The Panel finds that trademark registration with the USPTO proves Complainant’s rights in the UNIVISION.COM mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), even though Respondent may live or operate outside the U.S. See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction). Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <univisionnoticias.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNIVISION.COM mark. The single difference between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark is the insertion of the word “noticias,” which is the Spanish word for “news” and is descriptive of some of Complainant’s television offerings. The Panel finds that adding a descriptive word to Complainant’s mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name sufficiently to prevent confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <univisionnoticias.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNIVISION.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) demand that Complainant must put forth a prima facie case when alleging that Respondent does not possess rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. After presenting a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove its rights and legitimate interests. In this instance, however, Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint. The Panel accordingly infers that Complainant’s allegations are true as stated and that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because the respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed. In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the respondent never submitted a response or provided the panel with evidence to suggest otherwise). The Panel will analyze the evidence presented according to the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors, however, to independently determine whether Respondent possesses rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the <univisionnoticias.com> domain name because the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Cayman Ninety Business.” Complaint further contends that there is no other evidence in the record showing a relationship between Respondent and the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been given permission by Complainant to use the mark in a domain name. As a result, the Panel finds that Complainant is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and consequently lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”). Complainant alleges that Respondent maintains a website filled with a variety of pay-per-click links at the <univisionnoticias.com> domain name. Complainant argues that some of these links are unrelated to Complainant, such as “Immigration,” “Airline tickets,” and “Finance,” while others purportedly link to websites in competition with Complainant, such as the “Noticias en Espanol” and “Noticias” links. The Panel finds that a listing of pay-per-click links, without other evidence of rights and legitimate interests, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (concluding that using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to competing websites 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)); see also ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. balata inc, FA 888649 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2007) (finding that “using the confusingly similar <viaggidea.com> domain name to operate a website that features links to various commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees….is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that some of the pay-per-click links posted at Respondent’s <univisionnoticias.com> domain name compete with Complainant by linking Internet users to similar products and services, such as “Noticias en Espanol” or “Noticias.” As both of these links appear to redirect Internet users to websites offering Spanish-language news, which is also offered by Complainant, these links can divert Internet users away from Complainant and disrupt Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that using pay-per-click links in combination with Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name improperly competes with Complainant, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where the respondent’s website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to the complainant’s website, the respondent’s use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also 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)). Complainant argues that the <univisionnoticias.com> domain name resolves to a website displaying a series of links to third-party websites, some competing with and some unrelated to Complainant. These links are presumably pay-per-click links that generate revenue for Respondent. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name is likely intended to attract traffic to Respondent’s resolving website by trading off Complainant’s goodwill and creating consumer confusion about an affiliation between Complainant and Respondent. The Panel finds that Respondent’s efforts to profit as a result of improper use of Complainant’s mark and confusion reveal bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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).”); see also Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites). 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 <univisionnoticias.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist Dated: August 30, 2010 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.