Nosdgebills.com

The timeline behind nosdgebills.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 Sempra Energy and San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Adam Zoldan Claim Number: FA1008001341472 PARTIES Complainant is Sempra Energy and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Adam Zoldan (“Respondent”), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <nosdgebills.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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 August 17, 2010. On August 18, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <nosdgebills.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 August 19, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@nosdgebills.com by e-mail. Also on August 19, 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 September 22, 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 <nosdgebills.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SDGE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <nosdgebills.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <nosdgebills.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Complainant, Sempra Energy. Hereinafter, these Complainants will be collectively referred to as “Complainant.” Complainant holds trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the SDGE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,506,430 registered September 27, 1998). Complainant uses the SDGE mark for “public utility services.” Respondent, Adam Zoldan, registered the <nosdgebills.com> domain name on October 19, 2009. The disputed domain name resolves to Respondent’s website, which provides services in competition with those Complainant offers under its SDGE mark. 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. Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games and International Olympic Committee v. Hardeep Malik, FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated: It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity. In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Investments, Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in American Family Health Services Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 5, 2001) (“This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.”). In this case, San Diego Gas & Electric Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sempra Energy. The Panel finds this connection establishes a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants. Therefore, the Panel will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in the SDGE mark through its numerous registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,506,430 registered September 27, 1998). The Panel finds these trademark registrations sufficiently prove Complainant’s rights in the SDGE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant argues that Respondent’s <nosdgebills.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its SDGE mark. Respondent fully incorporates Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name and then merely adds the generic terms “no” and “bills.” Respondent also affixes the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds these additions do not negate a finding of confusingly similar. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Sadler, FA 250236 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2004) (finding the addition of generic terms to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark in the respondent’s <shop4harrypotter.com> and <shopforharrypotter.com> domain names failed to alleviate the confusing similarity between the mark and the domain names); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <nosdgebills.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its SDGE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case establishing Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The burden then shifts to Respondent to demonstrate it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”). The Panel may presume Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests based on Respondent’s failure to submit a response. 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.”). However, despite Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel will analyze the record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). Complainant avers it has not licensed, authorized, or given Respondent permission to use its SDGE mark. Furthermore, the WHOIS information lists “Adam Zoldan” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, which the Panel finds is not similar to the <nosdgebills.com> domain name. Without evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds Complainant’s assertions combined with the WHOIS registrant information indicates that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under 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 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). Complainant alleges Respondent is an owner and the Chief Executive Office of Solarscape Artistry, Inc., a company that provides solar energy products and services in competition with Complainant’s business. A screen shot of the website resolving from the <nosdgebills.com> domain name shows Complainant’s SDGE mark prominently displayed on the site. This image shows the letters “SDGE” highlighted in red whereas the rest of the words in Respondent’s disputed domain name are written in white. The Panel presumes that Respondent profits from its use of the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to advertise its competing services and, subsequently, receive commercial gain. Consequently, the Panel finds this use does not qualify as 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 Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 11, 2007) (Panelist Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., dissenting) (finding that the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the complainant’s business did not constitute 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 Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users seeking its products and services to Respondent’s competing website. The Panel agrees and finds Respondent’s <nosdgebills.com> domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Surface Prot. Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between the complainant and the respondent, the respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt the complainant's business and create user confusion). Complainant also contends that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's SDGE mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or the services or products on Respondent’s site. The Panel finds the evidence in the record supports this assertion. As previously discussed, the <nosdgebills.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SDGE mark. Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that prominently features Complainant’s SDGE mark. Lastly, the Panel presumes Respondent profits from its use of the disputed domain name. Based on this evidence, the Panel concludes Respondent has engaged in registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Dell Inc. v. Innervision Web Solutions, FA 445601 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was using the <dellcomputerssuck.com> domain name to divert Internet users to respondent’s website offering competing computer products and services); see also 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). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <nosdgebills.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist Dated: September 27, 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.