Nytimes.blog

The timeline behind nytimes.blog

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 The New York Times Company v. Saim khan Claim Number: FA2201001979564 PARTIES Complainant is The New York Times Company (“Complainant”), represented by Jordan LaVine of Flaster Greenberg PC, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Saim khan (“Respondent”), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <nytimes.blog>, registered with NameCheap, 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 7, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 7, 2022. On January 10, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <nytimes.blog> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 10, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 31, 2022 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@nytimes.blog. Also on January 10, 2022, 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 February 1, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Complainant is a leading news and media company, providing a variety of online blogs and electronic media products. Complainant asserts rights in the NY TIMES mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,934,613, Registered on March 22, 2011). The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s NY TIMES mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, only adding the “.blog” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the NY TIMES mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the resolving website attempts to pass off as Complainant and offers a variety of third-party links. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract users for commercial gain by passing off as Complainant and redirecting users to pay-per-click third-party links. Further, the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, confusing users about the association between the two parties and redirecting users to competing hyperlinks. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on August 3, 2021. 2. Complainant has established rights in the NY TIMES mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,934,613, Registered on March 22, 2011). 3. The disputed domain name’s resolving website hosts a variety of third-party links, both related and unrelated to Complainant’s business. 4. Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant. 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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in the NY TIMES mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,934,613, registered on March 22, 2011). When a complainant registers a mark with the USPTO, it is sufficient to establish rights in the mark. See Recreational Equipment, Inc. v. Liu Chan Yuan, FA 2107001954773 (Forum Aug. 9, 2021) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”); see also H-D Michigan, LLC v. Private Whois Service, FA 1006001328876 (Forum July 12, 2010) (finding that “Complainant has sufficiently registered its HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark with the USPTO to prove Complainant’s rights in the mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), regardless of the fact that Respondent lives or operates outside the United States.”). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has sufficiently established rights in the NY TIMES mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues the disputed domain name <nytimes.blog> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s NY TIMES mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and only adds the “.blog” gTLD. Past panels have agreed that the mere addition of a gTLD is not sufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark. See Tupelo Honey Hospitality Corporation v. King, Reggie, FA 1732247 (Forum July 19, 2017) (“Addition of a gTLD is irrelevant where a mark has been fully incorporated into a domain name and the gTLD is the sole difference.”); see also Roche Therapeutics Inc. v. Williams Shorell, FA 1684961 (Forum Aug. 30, 2016) (“Complainant asserts Respondent’s <boniva.top> domain name is identical to the BONIVA mark. The addition of a generic top level domain to a mark does not differentiate the domain from said mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NY TIMES mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not authorized to use the NY TIMES mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Previously, panels have looked at the available WHOIS information to determine whether a Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Furthermore, lack of authorization to use a mark serves as further indication that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.). Here, the WHOIS information shows Respondent is known as “Saim khan” and there is no evidence to suggest Complainant authorized Respondent to use the NY TIMES mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant also argues Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the resolving website attempts to pass off as Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as the complainant, presenting users with a similar website to the complainant’s, is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”); see also Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business). Complainant further asserts Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the resolving website hosts a variety of third-party links, both related and unrelated to Complainant’s business. As a result of comparing both Complainant’s and Respondent’s websites, the Panel agrees that Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant, and thus it finds Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use in compliance with Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts Respondent acts in bad faith because the disputed domain name and resolving website disrupt Complainant’s business by redirecting users to a website that mimics Complainant’s. Past panels have found that hosting a website that copies a complainant’s website may be considered disruptive to the complainant’s business. See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (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).”). The Panel notes that Respondent advertises on the disputed domain name’s resolving website a “headline” that reads “Free Webinar | Feb. 24: Why More People are Becoming Franchisees Thanks to the Semi-Absentee Model,” which links to a webinar sign-up page. This advertisement appears side-by-side with old and outdated news articles from months ago that do not originate with Complainant, but which are made to appear as though they appeared in The New York Times. As a result of comparing both Complainant’s and Respondent’s websites, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant presumably from which Respondent benefits financially. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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 <nytimes.blog> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: February 4, 2022 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.