Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

P. O. Box 50191
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 USA

PlayNetwork, Inc.
215 Eighth Avenue North
Seattle, Washington 98109

COMPLAINANT,

vs.

Play Industries
2890 Kilgore Road
Rancho Cordova, California
95670

RESPONDENT.

PANEL DECISION
Forum File No: FA0003000094232

Due date for a Response: March 24, 2000. Respondent did not submit a Response to the Complaint. The National Arbitration Forum (The Forum) reviewed the complaint and determined that it was in administrative compliance. After, The Forum forwarded the complainant to the Respondent on March 1, 2000 in compliance with Rule 2(a), and administrative proceeding was commenced pursuant to Rule 4(c). In compliance with Rule 4(d), The Forum immediately notified Network Solutions, Inc. (Network Solutions), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the Complainant that the administrative proceeding had commenced. The Respondent did not submit a response to The Forum within twenty (20) days pursuant to Rule 5(a). The Complainant is the owner of the domain name playnetwork.com, PlayNetwork and the service work "PLAYNETWORK", which it uses in connection with business in prerecorded audio discs and custom programming services. On March 18, 1999, the Respondent registered the domain name playnetworks.com with Network Solutions, a Registrar of domain names. On March 2, 2000, Network Solutions verified that Respondent is the registrant of the domain name "playnetworks.com", and further by registering its domain name with Network Solutions, Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain name through ICANN’s Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Policy).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Complainant is the owner of the domain name playnetwork.com, the trademark PlayNetwork and the service mark "PLAYNETWORK" and has used it, the names, and marks nationally and continuously since December 1997.

2. The Complainant has invested substation sums of money in the developing and marketing of its goods and services.

3. That the Respondent registered the domain name playnetworks.com, and has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to said domain name.

4. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s domain name, trade name and service mark in that it simply contains an "s" at the end of the word "Network" to make "Networks".

5. The Respondent uses its confusingly similar playnetworks.com, domain name as a conduit to link users directly to Respondent’s site, playtv.com, which appeared to have the purpose of siphoning off Complainant’s customers and to profit Respondent alone, thus disrupting Complainant’s business contrary to the paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy.

6. Respondent knew about the obvious similarity between Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s domain name. The Respondent’s use of the subject domain name is not legitimate and is in "bad faith" as defined by the Policy.

CONCLUSIONS

The undersigned certified that he has acted independently and has no known conflict of interest to serve as panelist in this proceeding. Having been duly selected and being neutral, the undersigned makes the following conclusions:

1. The domain name "playnetworks.com", registered by Respondent on March 18, 1999, is nearly identical and confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights and to which the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest.

2. The Respondent registered and acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of siphoning off complainant’s customers for Respondent’s sole profit.

3. Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

DECISION

Based on the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(i), it is decided as follows: In favor of the Complainant It is therefore ORDERED that the domain name "playnetworks.com" registered by the RESPONDENT be transferred to the COMPLAINANT. Dated: April 5, 2000, James A. Crary Presiding Panelist