Wwwmybaylor.com

The timeline behind wwwmybaylor.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 Baylor University v. Domain Admin / InTrust Domain Names Claim Number: FA1101001366744 PARTIES Complainant is Baylor University (“Complainant”), represented by Wendy C. Larson, Texas, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / InTrust Domain Names (“Respondent”), Colorado, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <wwwmybaylor.com>, registered with Namejumper.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 January 10, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 11, 2011. On January 10, 2011, Namejumper.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name is registered with Namejumper.Com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Namejumper.Com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Namejumper.Com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On January 12, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 1, 2011 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@wwwmybaylor.com. Also on January 12, 2011, 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 February 3, 2011, 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 Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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. 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 <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BAYLOR mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Baylor University, is a higher education university located in Texas. Complainant uses the BAYLOR mark in connection with the educational services at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, Complainant’s licensees uses the BAYLOR mark in connection with medical-related services and education. Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the BAYLOR mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,465,910 issued November 17, 1987). Respondent registered the <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name on August 28, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website that lists hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which compete with Complainant’s business. 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 claims rights in the BAYLOR mark through its numerous registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,465,910 issued November 17, 1987). The Panel finds these trademark registrations sufficiently prove Complainant’s rights in the BAYLOR mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); 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 contends Respondent’s <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its BAYLOR mark. Respondent replicates Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name and then adds the letters “www” and the generic term “my” to Complainant’s mark. In addition, Respondent attaches the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s alterations do not sufficiently distinguish its domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see also NIIT Ltd. v. Parthasarathy Venkatram, D2000-0497 (WIPO Aug. 4, 2000) (finding that the “domain name ‘myniit.com,’ which incorporates the word NIIT as a prominent part thereof, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade name and trademark NIIT”); 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 holds that Respondent’s <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BAYLOR mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case showing Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The burden then shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel may view Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also 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.”). Despite Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel will evaluate the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). The WHOIS information lists “Domain Admin / InTrust Domain Names” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, which the Panel finds is not similar to the <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name. Without evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds 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 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). Complainant alleges the disputed domain name resolves to a directory website that provides hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors. Complainant submits a screen shot of the website resolving from the <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name. This image shows a site that displays links with titles like “Healthcare Services,” “Medical Care,” “Healthcare Indexes,” and “Texas Health Plans.” The Panel presumes that Respondent profits from its use of the disputed domain name through the receipt of click-through fees. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name to make 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 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).”); see also 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)). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent’s <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name redirects Internet users seeking Complainant to Complainant’s competitors. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, which amounts to registration and use in bad faith under 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) . As previously discussed, the Panel finds that Respondent likely profits from its use of the disputed domain name through the receipt of click-through fees. In addition, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BAYLOR mark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Consequently, the Panel holds that Respondent has engaged in registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant’s website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme); see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). The Panel finds that 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 <wwwmybaylor.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist Dated: February 4, 2011 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.