Drseussbooks.com

The timeline behind drseussbooks.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 Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. anthony bussanich / makebidz Claim Number: FA2502002141643 PARTIES Complainant is Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Alberto Zacapa of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is anthony bussanich / makebidz ("Respondent"), Pennsylvania, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <drseussbooks.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Name.com, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 24, 2025; Forum received payment on February 24, 2025. On February 26, 2025, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <drseussbooks.com> Domain Name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.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 February 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 19, 2025 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@drseussbooks.com. Also on February 27, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 20, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 The Complainant is the owner of the mark DR SEUSS registered, inter alia, in the USA for books since at least 2003 with first use recorded as 1937. The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark adding only the generic term 'books' and the gTLD .com which do not prevent said confusing similarity. The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name has been used for competing pay-per-click links. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. Respondent has acted in bad faith confusing Internet users for commercial gain and using the Domain Name for pay-per-click links relating to books not related to the Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark DR SEUSS registered, inter alia, in the USA for books since at least 2003 with first use recorded as 1937. The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used for competing pay-per-click links. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 The Domain Name consist of the Complainant's DR SEUSS mark (registered in the USA for books since at least 2003 with first use recorded as 1937), the generic term 'books' and the gTLD .com. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term 'books' does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's registered trade mark. The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Respondent has used the Domain Name for competing pay-per-click links offering products not connected with the Complainant. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. McGuireWoods LLP v Mykhailo Loginov/Loginov Enterprises doo, FA 1584837 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) ("The Panel finds Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to feature parked hyperlinks containing links in competition with the Complainant ... is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate non commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).) The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Use for competing pay-per-click links indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant's business and diverting customers for commercial gain and also offering competing products indicates actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business.See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA 1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) ("Respondent's hosting of links to Complainant's competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii)"); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent's use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant's competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)). See also University of Rochester v. Park HyungJin, FA 1587458 (Forum Dec. 9, 2014) (where the Panel inferred Respondent's actual knowledge based on Respondent's use of the domain name to promote links related to the same field as where Complainant's mark is used). As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (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 <drseussbooks.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: March 20, 2025 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.