Yahoo-instantmessenger.com

The timeline behind yahoo-instantmessenger.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 Yahoo! Inc. v. Alzerra Ltd / Dahla Fraser Claim Number: FA1201001426686 PARTIES Complainant is Yahoo! Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brian J. Winterfeldt of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is Alzerra Ltd / Dahla Fraser (“Respondent”), British Virgin Islands. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <yahoo-instantmessenger.com>, registered with AUSTRALIAN STYLE PTY LTD. 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 January 26, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 26, 2012. On February 6, 2012, AUSTRALIAN STYLE PTY LTD confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name is registered with AUSTRALIAN STYLE PTY LTD and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. AUSTRALIAN STYLE PTY LTD has verified that Respondent is bound by the AUSTRALIAN STYLE PTY LTD 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 February 15, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 6, 2012 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@yahoo-instantmessenger.com. Also on February 15, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 March 9, 2012, 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" 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, without the benefit of a 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 <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Yahoo! Inc., registered the YAHOO! mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,040,222 registered February 25, 1997). Complainant began operating under its YAHOO! mark in June 1994 to provide free digital media services covering, among other things, news, shopping, photo sharing, instant messenger, and finance. Complainant owns the <yahoo.com> domain name. Respondent, Alzerra Ltd / Dahla Fraser, registered the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name on October 11, 2005. The disputed domain name resolves to a website containing links to free downloads of a variety of services, including instant messengers offered by Complainant and its competitors. 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 The Panel finds that Complainant owns rights in its YAHOO! mark through its trademark registrations for purposes of 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 Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO). Respondent’s <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it is comprised of the YAHOO! mark, the descriptive terms “instant messenger,” and the omission and addition of punctuation, and contains the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Past panels have determined that the addition of a generic term does not sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark. See AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles, FA 964479 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 20, 2007) (finding that the respondent failed to differentiate the <aimprofiles.com> domain name from the complainant’s AIM mark by merely adding the term “profiles”). The Panel also finds that the other changes in the disputed domain name are irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because an exclamation point is not reproducible in a domain name, a hyphen is not a distinguishing feature, and a top-level domain name is required. See Gurney’s Inn Resort & Spa Ltd. v. Whitney, FA 140656 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2003) (“Punctuation and spaces between words are not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and a mark because punctuation and spaces are not reproducible in a domain name.”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant argues that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name. The burden shifts to Respondent to prove it does have rights or legitimate interests when Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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.”). Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint allows the Panel to infer that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). The Panel finds Complainant made a sufficient prima facie case; 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). Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name, and that it has never authorized Respondent to use its YAHOO! mark. The WHOIS information lists “Alzerra Ltd / Dahla Fraser” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Prior panels have concluded that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information is not similar to the disputed domain name, the complainant has not authorized the respondent to register the domain name, and the respondent fails to present any evidence contradicting the complainant’s assertions. 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 Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). There is no evidence in the record that would support a finding that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel holds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant claims that Respondent is not using the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that provides links to free downloads, including instant messenger services provided by Complainant. Respondent presumably receives click-through fees when users click on its links. Past panels have determined that a respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a pay-per-click website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a pay-per-click search engine, in competition with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not 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)). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business. Respondent’s <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name resolves to a website containing hyperlinks to download Complainant’s instant messaging service, Complainant’s competitors’ instant messaging services, and unrelated hyperlinks. Prior panels have concluded that the use of a website to host hyperlinks to a complainant’s competitors constitutes a disruption of a complainant’s business. 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 David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business). Thus, the Panel determines that Respondent’s registration and use of the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name was in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent is using a confusingly similar disputed domain name and Internet users will likely become confused and believe that the links are approved of, sponsored by, or otherwise associated with Complainant. Respondent commercially benefits from the <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name because Respondent charges membership fees and collects click-through fees. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent’s use of the <yahoo-insantmessenger.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that the complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site); see also 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).”). Complainant also contends that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's YAHOO! mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the <yahoo-insantmessenger.com> domain name without actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, additional evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <yahoo-instantmessenger.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: March 16, 2012 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.