Equitybriefing.com

The timeline behind equitybriefing.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 Briefing.com, Inc. v. United Press Networks Claim Number: FA1210001466768 PARTIES Complainant is Briefing.com, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Melise R. Blakeslee of Sequel Technology & IP Law, PLLC, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is United Press Networks (“Respondent”), Canada. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <equitybriefing.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, LLC. 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. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 10, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 10, 2012. On October 12, 2012, Godaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <equitybriefing.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, LLC 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 October 15, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 5, 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@equitybriefing.com. Also on October 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 November 19, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS Complainant makes the following allegations: Complainant claims rights in the BRIEFING.COM mark and numerous variations of the BRIEFING mark, including BRIEFINGTRADER, BRIEFING TV, and BRIEFING ADVISOR. Complainant owns trademark registrations for its BRIEFING.COM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,158,060 registered May 19, 1998). See Exhibit K. Complainant has used its BRIEIFING.COM mark since July 1, 1995 in connection with providing consumers information and live market analysis about the U.S. and international equity markets online. Complainant provides services under its mark such as financial market commentaries, stock and bond quotations, earning reports, economic reports, live financial market analyses, economic and market forecasts, and other similar information. Complainant’s services combine commentary, criticism, trading ideas, research, and explanation of the market activities, all of which can be found at its website at the <briefing.com> domain name. Complainant has thousands of website visitors at its page per month and offers its subscribers e-mails and newsletters on topics related to global equity markets. Complainant has used the BRIEFING.COM name continuously since its first use and has built considerable goodwill and recognition in its name within the investing community. Respondent registered the <equitybriefing.com> domain name on August 27, 2011 and uses the domain name to host a website that prominently displays a “bear and bull” graphic, which are traditional symbols used in connection with the stock market. The website invites visitors to submit an e-mail address in order to be added to a mailing list. See Exhibit M. The website states a disclaimer that limits its services to an “information platform” in relation to investments and competes with Complainant’s services. The <equitybriefing.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIEFING.COM mark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant or licensed to use any of Complainant’s BRIEFING marks, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent registered and uses the <equitybriefing.com> domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business through its attempts to collect personal contact information from consumers and promoting its services in competition with Complainant. Respondent makes a commercial gain from its use of the disputed domain name. Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time Respondent registered the <equitybriefing.com> domain name. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. Complainant has rights in its BRIEFING.COM mark. 2. Respondent’s <equitybriefing.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. 3. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. 4. Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. 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." 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. 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.”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant claims to own rights in its BRIEFING.COM mark through its trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,158,060 registered May 19, 1998). In Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005), the panel stated that the complainant established its rights in the mark under the Policy through registration with the USPTO. The Panel concludes that Complainant effectively secured rights in the BRIEFING.COM mark through its USPTO registration for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the <equitybriefing.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its BRIEFING.COM mark because the domain name adds to the mark the descriptive word “equity,” which is related to the services which Complainant provides. The Panel finds that the addition of one descriptive word to a mark in its entirety does not alleviate confusing similarity between the <equitybriefing.com> domain name and Complainant’s BRIEFING.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Credit Research, Inc., D2002-0095 (WIPO May 7, 2002) (finding that several domain names incorporating the complainant’s entire EXPERIAN mark and merely adding the term “credit” were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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 UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). Complainant contends that the WHOIS information for the <equitybriefing.com> domain name does not demonstrate that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name and argues that Respondent therefore does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Panel observes that the WHOIS information identifies the registrant as “United Press Networks” and determines that the WHOIS information fails to support a finding that Respondent is commonly known by the <equitybriefing.com> 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). Complainant puts forth the allegation that Respondent offers content at its resolving websites in competition with Complainant, including reports and analysis related to equity markets, and solicits e-mail addresses from Internet users in exchange for providing informational e-mails relating to the investment community. Complainant points to its Exhibit M, which is a screenshot of Respondent’s resolving webpage that shows a box in which website visitors can enter their e-mail addresses and receive investment information and argues that such use fails to establish a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. The panel in Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003), held that the respondent used the disputed domain name to market products in competition with the complainant’s goods, which was not a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Panel concludes that Respondent operates a website in competition with Complainant by offering similar services and information and finds that Respondent does not use the <equitybriefing.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). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant alleges that Respondent disrupts its business by maintaining a website at the <equitybriefing.com> domain name and diverting investors on the Internet that seek Complainant’s website to Respondent’s own website. In Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003), the panel determined that the respondent registered the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website, and inferred that the respondent purposely registered and used the domain name in bad faith to disrupt the complainant’s business. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s disruption of Complainant’s business by offering competing services demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Complainant asserts that Respondent attempts to attract Internet users to its website by using a confusingly similar domain name to Complainant’s mark and offering competing content with the purpose of making a commercial profit. Complainant argues that such use demonstrates bad faith registration and use. The Panel determines that by hosting a website that attempts to confuse and attract consumers in order to generate a profit is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Complainant argues that it is unlikely Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s BRIEFING.COM trademark when Respondent registered the <equitybriefing.com> domain name due to the fame associated with Complainant’s mark and the existence of trademark registrations for the mark. Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the <equitybriefing.com> domain name to offer content relating to investment and equity markets was solely to take advantage of the reputation associated with Complainant’s mark. The Panel determines that the constructive notice given by Complainant’s trademark registrations is insufficient to find that Respondent registered the <equitybriefing.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."). The Panel concludes, however, that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, as demonstrated by the substantially similar content at the resolving website, and finds that Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BRIEFING.COM mark supports a finding of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). 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 <equitybriefing.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist Dated: December 3, 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.