Clips4free.cc

The timeline behind clips4free.cc

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.

DECISION Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. YoHOST.ORG Privacy Protection / Venture i. S.A Claim Number: FA1504001614747 PARTIES Complainant is Wiluna Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by John P. Sullivan of Volpe and Koenig, P.C., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is YoHOST.ORG Privacy Protection / Venture i. S.A (“Respondent”), Panama, Panama. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <clips4free.cc>, registered with WEBCC. 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 Forum electronically on April 15, 2015; the Forum received payment on April 15, 2015. On April 16, 2015, WEBCC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <clips4free.cc> domain name is registered with WEBCC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. WEBCC has verified that Respondent is bound by the WEBCC 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 April 27, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 18, 2015 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@clips4free.cc. Also on April 27, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On May 27, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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 1. Respondent’s <clips4free.cc> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CLIPS4SALE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <clips4free.cc> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <clips4free.cc> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant uses the CLIPS4SALE mark in connection with its entertainment services, including providing film clips. Complainant has registered the CLIPS4SALE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,554,200, registered December 30, 2008). Respondent registered the <clips4free.cc> domain name on March 8, 2015, and uses it to resolve to a website featuring media similar to what Complainant offers. 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 The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the CLIPS4SALE mark with the USPTO demonstrates its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), even when complainant and respondent operate in different countries. See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”). Respondent’s <clips4free.cc> domain name incorporates a variation of the Complainant’s CLIPS4SALE mark, simply substituting “sale” with “free” and adding the ccTLD “.cc.” Prior panels have agreed that such a substitution, along with the inclusion of a ccTLD, do not mitigate confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc. v. Admin, FA 473826 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 22, 2005) (finding the <americaneaglestores.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS mark); see also Crocs, Inc. v. [Registrant], FA 1043196 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (determining that “the addition of a ccTLD is irrelevant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, as a top-level domain is required of all domain names”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <clips4free.cc> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CLIPS4SALE mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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 argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <clips4free.cc> domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not gained the consent of Complainant to use the CLIPS4SALE mark in a domain name. The Panel finds that there is no evidence indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected). Further, Complainant contends that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through of the disputed domain name. Complainant argues that the domain name resolves to a website containing media similar to Complainant’s, calculated to earn a profit from diverted Internet users. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Ultimate Elecs., Inc. v. Nichols, FA 195683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2003) (finding that the respondent's “use of the domain name (and Complainant’s mark) to sell products in competition with Complainant demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name”). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <clips4free.cc> domain name to disrupt Complainant’s legitimate business by diverting Internet users to a website targeted to the same customers as Complainant. The Panel notes that there is a marked similarity between Complainant’s website and Respondent’s <clips4free.cc> site. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate websites that compete with the complainant’s business). Respondent also attempts to attract Internet users to its site for commercial gain by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a website similar to Complainant’s home site, featuring hyperlinks, presumably for click-through fees, The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark). 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 <clips4free.cc> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: June 2, 2015 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.