WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions >> 2002 >> [2002] GENDND 713

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Yahoo! Inc. v. Seocho [2002] GENDND 713 (13 May 2002)


National Arbitration Forum

DECISION

Yahoo! Inc. v. Seocho

Claim Number: FA0204000109050

PARTIES

Complainant is Yahoo!, Sunnyvale, CA (“Complainant”) represented by David M. Kelly, of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.  Respondent is Seocho, Seoul, KOREA (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <auctionyahoo.com>, <cyahoo.com>, <emailyahoo.com>, <eyahoo.com>, <mapyahoo.com>, <ryahoo.com>, <wwwyahoogames.com>, <yahoochatrooms.com>, <yahooco.com>, <yahoodirectory.com>, <yahoolove.com>, <yahoon.com>, <yahooooo.com>, <yahoopersonal.com>, <yahooquote.com>, <yahooquotes.com>, <yahoor.com>, <yahoosearchengine.com>, <yahoospades.com>, <yahooxxx.com>, and <yahooyahoo.com>, registered with BulkRegister.com.

PANEL

On May 8, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist. 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.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on April 4, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 5, 2002.

On April 5, 2002, BulkRegister.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <auctionyahoo.com>, <cyahoo.com>, <emailyahoo.com>, <eyahoo.com>, <mapyahoo.com>, <ryahoo.com>, <wwwyahoogames.com>, <yahoochatrooms.com>, <yahooco.com>, <yahoodirectory.com>, <yahoolove.com>, <yahoon.com>, <yahooooo.com>, <yahoopersonal.com>, <yahooquote.com>, <yahooquotes.com>, <yahoor.com>, <yahoosearchengine.com>, <yahoospades.com>, <yahooxxx.com>, and <yahooyahoo.com>, are registered with BulkRegister.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  BulkRegister.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

On April 8, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 29, 2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@auctionyahoo.com, postmaster@cyahoo.com, postmaster@emailyahoo.com, postmaster@eyahoo.com, postmaster@mapyahoo.com, postmaster@ryahoo.com, postmaster@wwwyahoogames.com, postmaster@yahoochatrooms.com, postmaster@yahooco.com, postmaster@yahoodirectory.com, postmaster@yahoolove.com, postmaster@yahoon.com, postmaster@yahooooo.com, postmaster@yahoopersonal.com, postmaster@yahooquote.com, postmaster@yahooquotes.com, postmaster@yahoor.com, postmaster@yahoosearchengine.com, postmaster@yahoospades.com, postmaster@yahooxxx.com, and postmaster@yahooyahoo.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

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.”  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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1. Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous YAHOO! mark.  Complainant asserts that each of the twenty-one disputed domain names incorporates the mark in its entirety and either adds a generic term (i.e. “auction” in <auctionyahoo.com>), a nondistinguishing letter (i.e. the “c” in <cyahoo.com>), or a repeats the famous mark (i.e. <yahooyahoo.com>).  Therefore, Complainant concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainants famous mark.

2. The various uses of the disputed domain names do not constitute a bona fide offering in connection with any of the disputed domain names, nor do they demonstrate a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of any of the disputed domain names.  Furthermore, Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names.  Therefore, Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in any of the disputed domain names.

3. Respondent has used the disputed domain names to intentionally attract Internet users to its affiliated websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s famous YAHOO! mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and endorsement of Respondent’s affiliated websites and goods and services offered on those websites.  Second, Respondent’s unauthorized use of the domain names for commercial gain suggests opportunistic bad faith given the widespread use and fame of Complainant’s YAHOO! mark and name.  Furthermore, Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names meet the bad faith element set forth in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), because Respondent is disrupting Complainant’s business.  Finally, Respondent’s registration and use of the domain names meet the bad faith element set forth in Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  Respondent’s registration of the twenty-one domain names in and of itself constitutes a pattern of registering trademark-related domain names in bad faith.  Further, Respondent’s use of trademark-related domain names has been the subject of at least seven adverse UDRP decisions.  Therefore, Respondent has registered and used the twenty-one domain names in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No Response was submitted.

FINDINGS

Complainant has registered various marks incorporating the distinctive YAHOO! mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office:

1. Registration No. 2,040,222, issued February 25, 1997, covering goods and services in International Classes 9 (computer software), 16 (books), 35 (advertising), and 42 (computer and online services).

2. Registration No. 2,040,691, issued February 25, 1997, covering services in International Class 42 (computer and online services).

3. Registration No. 2,076,457, issued July 1, 1997, covering goods in International Class 16 (magazines).

Complainant has also registered YAHOO! in Respondent’s homeland of Korea:

1. Registration No. 393,148, issued January 26, 1998, covering publications.

2. Registration No. 42,273, issued April 3, 1998, covering computer services.

3. Registration No. 42,272, issued April 3, 1998, covering advertising services.

Complainant uses the YAHOO! mark in connection with a global Internet communications, media, and commerce company that delivers a branded network of comprehensive searching, directory, information, communication, shopping services and other online activities and features to millions of Internet users daily.  As the result of marketing and promoting its brand name, the YAHOO! mark has become one of the most recognized brands in the world and Complainant boasts revenues of $717,422,000 in 2001.  Although Complainant utilizes several domain names that incorporate its YAHOO! mark, Complainant uses <yahoo.com> as its main site.

Respondent has registered the following domain names connected with websites with the following functions:

Disputed Domain Name

Date of Registration

Redirected Website Function

<yahooyahoo.com>

December 12, 2000

Competing search engine

<auctionyahoo.com>

December 13, 2000

Competing search engine

<wwwyahoogames.com>

December 19, 2000

Casino-related popup advertisement

<emailyahoo.com>

February 14, 2001

Competing search engine

<yahoopersonal.com>

February 14, 2001

Competing personal ads

<yahooooo.com>

February 22, 2001

Competing search engine

<mapyahoo.com>

April 4, 2001

Competing travel reservation

<yahooxxx.com>

April 16, 2001

Competing search engine/ offers pornogarphic services

<yahoosearchengine.com>

May 5, 2001

Competing search engine

<yahoochatrooms.com>

May 5, 2001

Competing search engine

<yahooquote.com>

May 5, 2001

Competing financial services

<yahooquotes.com>

May 5, 2001

Competing financial services

<yahoolove.com>

May 6, 2001

Competing personal ads

<yahoospades.com>

May 6, 2001

Gambling

<yahooco.com>

May 11, 2001

Competing search engine

<yahoodirectory.com>

June 1, 2001

Competing search engine

<cyahoo.com>

June 23, 2001

Competing search engine

<eyahoo.com>

June 24, 2001

Competing search engine

<ryahoo.com>

June 25, 2001

Competing search engine

<yahoon.com>

June 26, 2001

Competing search engine

<yahoor.com>

June 26, 2001

Competing search engine

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.”

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the 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.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(2) the 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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established its rights to the YAHOO! mark through registration in the United States and in Respondent’s home country of Korea and subsequent continuous use internationally. 

The Panel finds that all twenty-one disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark in three different aspects.  All twenty-one disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s famous mark and either adds: a generic term; a nondistinguishing character; or Complainant’s distinctive mark.  In all three instances the minor differences do not distinguish the particular disputed domain name from Complainant’s famous mark.

First, merely adding a generic term to the famous YAHOO! mark does not diminish the confusing similarity between the mark and the disputed domain names.  See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word…nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that, given the similarity of the Complainant’s marks with the domain name, consumers will presume the domain name is affiliated with the Complainant; the Respondent is attracting Internet users to a website, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website).  Therefore, <auctionyahoo.com>, <emailyahoo.com>, <mapyahoo.com>, <yahoochatrooms.com>, <yahoodirectory.com>, <yahoolove.com>, <yahoopersonal.com>, <yahooquote.com>, <yahooquotes.com>, <yahoosearchengine.com>, <yahoospades.com>, and <yahooxxx.com> are confusingly similar with Complainant’s famous YAHOO! mark.  Because a “www” preceding a mark is not considered a distinguishing feature and since a generic term does not create a distinction, <wwwyahoogames.com> is confusingly similar to YAHOO!.  See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”).

Second, given that a generic term added to a famous mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark, the disputed domain becomes even more confusingly similar when Respondent repeats the famous mark in the disputed domain name.  Therefore, the Panel finds that <yahooyahoo.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark.

Finally, a nondistinguishing letter added to a famous mark does not create a distinct domain name capable of overcoming the claim of confusing similarity.  See Kelson Physician Partners, Inc. v. Mason, CPR003 (CPR) (finding that “kelsonmd.com” is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s federally registered service mark, “Kelson”); see also Nat’l Geographic Soc. v. Stoneybrook Inv., FA 96263 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2001) (finding that the domain name <nationalgeographics.com> was confusingly similar to Complainant’s “National Geographic” mark).  Therefore, the Panel finds that <cyahoo.com>, <eyahoo.com>, <ryahoo.com>, <yahooco.com>, <yahoon.com>, <yahooooo.com>, and <yahoor.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark.

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has not filed a Response.  Therefore, the Panel presumes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names.  See Strum v. Nordic Net Exchange AB, FA 102843 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent's failure to respond to the Panel's additional requests warranted a finding for Complainant).  Because a Response was not filed, the Panel presumes that all allegations in the Complaint are true.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true).

Based on the facts presented in the Complaint, and given that there are no facts to the contrary, it is apparent that nineteen of the twenty-one disputed domain names were linked to websites that offer competing goods and services.  This is not a bona fide use in connection with the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).  See Chip Merchant, Inc. v. Blue Star Elec., D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that the disputed domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and that Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell competing goods was illegitimate and not a bona fide offering of goods); see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from Complainant's site to a competing website).

The two domain names that do not fit in the “competing category,” <yahoospades.com> and <wwwyahoogames.com>, offer gambling advertisements and services, which is not considered a bona fide use in connection with the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).  See Société des Bains de Mer v. Int’l Lotteries, D2000-1326 (WIPO Jan. 8, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent used the <casinomontecarlo.com> and <montecarlocasinos.com> domain names in connection with an online gambling website).

Based on the fame Complainant’s YAHOO! mark has attained worldwide, it is difficult to imagine that anyone other than Complainant could be commonly known as YAHOO!.  Therefore, Respondent cannot possibly be commonly known by any of the twenty-one disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who may show a right or legitimate interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE trademark); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Asdak, FA 96542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2001) (finding sufficient proof that Respondent was not commonly known by a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because of Complainant’s well-established use of the mark).

           

Respondent has used the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to various websites that offer commercial goods and services.  This activity by Respondent does not demonstrate a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D.Mass 2002) (finding that, because Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion with Complainant's website and marks, it's use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use); see also Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant’s YAHOO! mark has become a famous and distinctive mark internationally.  See Yahoo! Inc. v. Kirovsky, D2000-0428 (WIPO Aug. 9, 2000) (holding that the “YAHOO! mark is not only fanciful but also an international well-known mark constituting one of the most famous marks in the on-line world today” and ordering transfer of four disputed domain names).

Based on this fame, the Panel may infer that Respondent knew or should have known about Complainant’s famous YAHOO! mark before registering all twenty-one disputed domain names.  Therefore, Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith.  See Yahoo! Inc. v. Ashby, D2000-0241 (WIPO June 14, 2000) (finding that the fame of the YAHOO! mark negated any plausible explanation for Respondent’s registration of the <yahooventures.com> domain name); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given the world-wide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith).   

Respondent has registered twenty-one domain names that incorporate Complainant’s YAHOO! mark.  This activity by Respondent is considered to be bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See YAHOO! Inc. v. Syrynx, Inc., D2000-1675 (WIPO Jan. 30, 2001) (finding a bad faith pattern pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) in Respondent's registration of two domain names incorporating Complainant's YAHOO! mark); see also Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).

Nineteen of the disputed domain names reflect Complainant’s mark and redirect Internet users to websites that offers goods and services that compete with Complainant.  This is evidence that Respondent has registered these nineteen disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent, Respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion).

Finally, Respondent has used the disputed domain names to intentionally attract Internet users to its affiliated websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s famous YAHOO! mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and endorsement of Respondent’s affiliated websites goods and services.  This is evidence that Respondent has used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe on Complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to Respondent’s website); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent directed Internet users seeking the Complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a direct competitor of Complainant).  This activity is even more apparent when it is considered that two of the disputed domain names link Internet users to websites that offer gambling information and one disputed domain name offers pornography.  See Mars, Inc. v. Double Down Magazine, D2000-1644 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where Respondent linked the domain name <marssmusic.com>, which is identical to Complainant’s mark, to a gambling website); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent linked the domain name in question to websites displaying banner advertisements and pornographic material).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief should be hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the following domain names: <auctionyahoo.com>, <cyahoo.com>, <emailyahoo.com>, <eyahoo.com>, <mapyahoo.com>, <ryahoo.com>, <wwwyahoogames.com>, <yahoochatrooms.com>, <yahooco.com>, <yahoodirectory.com>, <yahoolove.com>, <yahoon.com>, <yahooooo.com>, <yahoopersonal.com>, <yahooquote.com>, <yahooquotes.com>, <yahoor.com>, <yahoosearchengine.com>, <yahoospades.com>, <yahooxxx.com>, and <yahooyahoo.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

                 

 James P. Buchele, Panelist

Dated: May 13, 2002


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/713.html