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 >> 2003 >> [2003] GENDND 1046

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

Vivendi Universal Games and Davidson& Associates, Inc. v. XBNetVentures Inc. [2003] GENDND 1046 (11 November 2003)


National Arbitration Forum

DECISION

Vivendi Universal Games and Davidson & Associates, Inc. v. XBNetVentures Inc.

Claim Number: FA0309000198803

PARTIES

Complainant is Vivendi Universal Games and Davidson & Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, CA (collectively, “Complainant”) represented by David J. Steele of Christie, Parker & Hale LLP, 3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 6000, Newport Beach, CA  95660. Respondent is XBNetVentures Inc., PO Box 22109, Phoenix, AZ  85028 (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <blizzardgames.com> registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com.

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.

Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) is the Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on September 29, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 30, 2003.

On September 30, 2003, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <blizzardgames.com> is registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.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 October 2, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of October 22, 2003 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@blizzardgames.com by e-mail.

A timely Response was received on October 22, 2003. However, the Response does not conclude with this statement expressed in Rule 3(b)(viii):

Respondent certifies that the information contained in this Response is to the best of Respondent’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.

Moreover, the Response does not contain a signature, which is also required under Rule 3(b)(viii).

Complainant and Respondent each made a timely Additional Submission in compliance with the Forum’s Supplemental Rule No. 7.

On October 29, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

            1.            Complainant, Vivendi Universal Games, Inc. and its affiliate Davidson & Associates, Inc., is a worldwide computer gaming company, creating its best-selling computer games at its famous Blizzard Studios, and marketing its games and related goods and services under its well-known family of BLIZZARD trademarks.  The disputed domain name, <blizzardgames.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLIZZARD mark, merely adding the generic word “games” that is very closely associated with Complainant and its BLIZZARD mark.

            2.            Complainant owns valuable trademark and service mark rights for its BLIZZARD family of marks, including its BLIZZARD and BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT marks for computer games and related online gaming/goods and services.  The following are United States Federal registrations for BLIZZARD and BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, which are owned by Complainant, Vivendi Universal Games, Inc., through its subsidiary, Davidson & Associates, Inc.

MARK

REG. NO.

GOODS DESCRIPTION

BLIZZARD

Trademark

Reg. No.: 2410748

First Use: 3/1995

Filed: 1/7/2000

Books in field of computer games.

BLIZZARD

Service mark

Reg. No.: 2410749

First Use: 11/13/1996

Filed: 1/7/2000

Entertainment services, namely, providing on-line computer games, tips and strategies for computer games, and news concerning computer games; arranging and conducting computer game competitions.

BLIZZARD

Trademark

Reg. No.: 2433353

First Use: 12/1995

Filed: 1/7/2000

Clothing, namely, hats and shirts.

BLIZZARD

Trademark

Reg. No.: 2490187

First Use: 5/17/1994

Filed: 1/7/2000

Computer game software and instruction manuals sold as a unit; mouse pads.

BLIZZARD

Trademark

Reg. No.: 2490188

First Use: 12/4/1998

Filed: 1/7/2000

Toys and games, namely, action figures and action figure accessories.

BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT

Trademark

Reg. No.: 1993894

First Use:  11/15/94

Filed: 5/5/1994

Computer programs for video and computer games and instruction manuals sold as a unit with the programs.

BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT

Trademark

Reg. No.: 2440620

First Use: 12/1995

Filed: 1/7/2000

Clothing, namely, hats and shirts.

BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT

Trademark

Reg. No.: 2490189

First Use: 3/1995

Filed: 1/7/2000

Books in the field of computer games.

BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT

Trademark

Reg. No.: 2492072

First Use: 11/15/1994

Filed: 1/7/2000

Computer game software and instruction manuals sold as a unit; mouse pads.

BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT

Trademark

Reg. No.: 2494000

First Use: 12/4/1998

Filed: 1/7/2000

Toys and games, namely, action figures and action figure accessories.

BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT

Service mark

Reg. No.: 2548929

First Use: 11/13/1996

Filed: 1/7/2000

Entertainment services, namely, providing on-line computer games, tips and strategies for computer games, and news concerning computer games; arranging and conducting computer game competitions.

            3.            Complainant markets its goods and services under the BLIZZARD and BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT marks, and has invested significant capital in its marks through ongoing promotions, advertising and extensive Internet presence.  Complainant operates numerous websites including its <blizzard.com> and <battle.net> websites, which promote its family of BLIZZARD marks and generate substantial sales annually.  The BLIZZARD and BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT marks have become synonymous with Complainant’s goods and services.  As a result of the continuous use of the mark in relation to computer games and online gaming and related goods and services, Complainant has created tremendous goodwill in its BLIZZARD family of marks.

            4.            The disputed domain name <blizzardgames.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered BLIZZARD trademarks and service marks.  The “blizzard” portion of the domain name is identical to the famous BLIZZARD family of marks.  That Respondent added “games” to the end of Complainant’s mark further increases the likelihood of confusion because Complainant and the BLIZZARD marks are closely connected with Complainant’s use of the mark in relation to computer games and online gaming.  The registration of a domain name that merely appends a term or word to a well-known or famous trademark does not avoid likely confusion with respect to the incorporated mark.

            5.            Respondent is known as “XBNetVentures, Inc.”  Respondent has no affiliation or relationship with Complainant and has no legitimate reason for using the BLIZZARD family of marks as a prominent portion of its domain name.  Further, Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, nor may it be implied that Respondent registered the domain name in good faith.  Instead, Respondent’s only use of the domain name is to unlawfully misdirect web surfers searching for Complainant’s website to Respondent’s own commercial gaming site.

            6.            Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name, or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name, in connection with a legitimate and bona fide offering of goods or services.

            7.            Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of attracting users seeking Complainant’s goods and services, or information about Complainant.  Respondent derives economic benefit driving traffic to websites, which offer commercial products, banner ads and links to other commercial content.  Respondent’s conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use as defined by Section 4(b)(iv).  Respondent knew, or reasonably should have known, that potential customers seeking information about the goods and services of Complainant are likely to access Respondent’s domain name, and Respondent intentionally redirects those users to promote its own games.  Additionally, some of the redirected customers looking for Complainant’s online site may associate the linked sites with Complainant’s BLIZZARD family of marks, thereby tarnishing the mark.

            8.            Because the BLIZZARD and BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT trademarks are so obviously connected with Complainant, Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain without a connection to Complainant suggests bad faith.

B. Respondent

            1.            Complainant did not comply with the Forum’s rules relating to communications with Respondent, specifically e-mail notification.

            2.            Complainant has had ample time and opportunity to register any or all domain names it felt would protect its mark.  This is not an issue of a company who registered a mark years ago and is just entering the online Internet world.  In fact, Complainant has only recently registered <blizzardgames.net> (June 15, 2003).  That is almost nine years after registering <blizzard.com>, seven years after the first public archive of <blizzard.com> showing a game-based site, five years after promoting <blizzardgames.com> on their own website <blizzard.com>, and almost four years after  registering a trademark for Blizzard with a description of online gaming.  If Complainant cannot think and plan accordingly for the future development of its business focus, it should not be allowed to take domain names registered by others when they finally get around to deciding what they want.  Complainant should not be considered a naïve victim.  It should be looked at as an expert in its field.  The system should not reward poor planning and management.

            3.            There are 413 domain names registered with Blizzard in them, most of which are not owned by Complainant.  Complainant owns the mark “BLIZZARD” not “Blizzard Games,” etc.  Owning the mark “Blizzard” does not give Complainant the right to claims on any domain name that contains the English and generic word “Blizzard.”

            4.            In the past, Complainant’s mark was used by another unrelated party without objection by Complainant.

            5.            The disputed domain name was pointed to one of Respondent XBNetVentures, Inc.’s servers nameserver that will map any domain name in which a website is not explicitly created to the first website created on that server.  In this case, it was <xboxcheats.com>.  Respondent was unaware that this domain name inadvertently mapped to <xboxcheats.com> as a result of an explicit website not having been created for it.  Upon notification, Respondent took appropriate action explicitly to map the domain name to a parking page so it would not infringe on Complainant’s claims.  Respondent will not use the disputed domain name in a manner that infringes on Complainant’s trademark claims, thereby eliminating all issues of confusion of Complainant’s marks.

            6.            Respondent owns and operates many game fan sites across many platforms and has picked up some other game domain names to develop websites. Respondent registered the domain name to restore it back into a game site related to its past history.  The disputed domain name was registered in good faith and was never listed for sale.  Respondent’s intent was to develop the disputed domain name.  Based on Complainant’s past acceptance and promotion of <blizzardgames.com>, Respondent should be allowed to keep the domain name since it is in the game promotion market provided that the domain name is not used to infringe on any claims made by Complainant’s registered trademarks.

C. Complainant’s Additional Submissions

            1.            Complainant has not violated the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.  Complainant has fully complied with the UDRP Policy, Policy Rules, and the Forum’s Supplemental Rules.  UPDR Rules, Paragraph 2(b), controls the communication, including the transmission of the Complaint, by Complainant to Respondent.  It reads in pertinent part, that :

any written communication to Complainant or Respondent provided for under these Rules shall be made by the preferred means stated by the Complainant or Respondent, respectively (see Paragraphs 3(b)(iii) and 5(b)(iii), or in the absence of such specification

(i) by telecopy or facsimile transmission, with a confirmation of transmission; or

(ii) by postal or courier service, postage pre-paid and return receipt requested; or

(iii) electronically via the Internet, provided a record of its transmission is available.

Because Respondent did not provide any “preferred means” of communication, Complainant sent the Complaint, evidence and other supporting documentation, under cover of the Complaint Transmittal Cover Sheet, to the address listed by Respondent in the whois information at the time the Complaint was filed.  The package was sent via Certified United States Mail, postage pre-paid, with a return receipt requested. 

            2.            Respondent correctly notes that in the past Complainant had authorized another party to use its mark and the subject domain name.  But this does not give rights to an unrelated, unauthorized third party such as Respondent.

            3.            Respondent contends that it “registered the domain name to restore it back into a game site related to it’s [sic] past history.”  However, the only evidence of Respondent’s intent is its actual and unlawful use of the subject domain name.  Respondent has owned the subject domain name for over one year and has yet to use the domain name in any lawful manner.  Further, Respondent has not provided, before any notice of the dispute, any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of good or services.

            4.            Respondent asserts that, “Claimant has had plenty of time and opportunity to register any or all domain name if [sic] felt would protect their brand.”  Respondent continues, “If claimant can not think and plan accordingly for the future development of it’s [sic] business focus they should not be allowed to take domain names registered by others when they finally get around to deciding what they want . . . . The system should not reward poor planning and management.”  Respondent’s view is inconsistent with settled law and logically flawed.

            5.            A service mark owner need not register every domain name that could possibly infringe its service mark rights.

            6.            Complainant’s domain name prior to expiration was registered and used by an authorized third party in accord with Complainant’s well-established business plan.  That use was authorized by Complainant.  It was only recently that the domain name expired and, without Complainant’s knowledge or approval, was registered by Respondent and used in a manner that creates a likelihood of confusion and dilution of Complainant’s mark.

            7.            The burden to ensure that a domain name’s registration and use does not infringe another party’s rights must be carried by the registrant.  In this way, the system does not reward unlawful trademark infringement, dilution, or cybersquatting.

D. Respondent’s Additional Submissions

            1.            The disputed domain name was registered in good faith to restore the site.

            2.            The disputed domain unintentionally pointed to <xboxcheats.com>.  It was originally set to a parking page on the server when it was registered.  About one year ago a worm virus infected the machine and began eating up all the hard drive space.  In an emergency situation, the DNS information was saved (“named” director) and all active sites were tar’d and saved to another served.  An emergency restore was done on the machine.  Over the next several days all active sites were restored however parking pages were not.  This left the domain name <blizzardgames.com> in the Nameserver but without a parking page to point to (i.e., web path to an index.html file) which caused the server to default the first site that was set up on that server.  Because <xboxcheats.com> is one of Respondent’s biggest sites, it was restored first.

            3.            It would be expected that a Complainant would send a Cease and Desist notice upon learning of a trademark violation.  In this case, this case has served as such notice and the infringement issue was removed upon notice.

            4.            Respondent has for years assisted novice website developers, with an interest in games, to develop game fan sites.  Many of these novice developers have contacted Respondent and Respondent has assisted them directly by providing help from more experienced developers, funding their site development, providing the domain name for them to develop, and donating servers to use for their site hosting.  Respondent’s development teams have established relationships with Microsoft and dozens of other game development companies.

            5.            The burden of proof of bad faith is on Complainant.  Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.  In fact, Respondent believes that Complainant’s current actions represent an act of bad faith since Respondent is promoting its products in good faith.  The disputed domain name was registered in good faith with the intention of restoring the site.

FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 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;

(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.

Preliminarily, there are procedural issues to be determined.

Respondent submitted a timely Response in this proceeding.  The Response, however, does not conclude with this statement required by Rule 3(b)(viii):

Respondent certifies that the information contained in this Response is to the best of Respondent’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.

Moreover, the Response does not contain a signature, which is also required by Rule 3(b)(viii).  While Respondent has not warranted, accordingly, that the information in its Response is complete or accurate, the Panelist believes it appropriate to consider Respondent’s contentions on their merits.

The Panelist finds and determines that Complainant has complied with the UDRP Policy, UDRP Rules, and the Forum’s Supplemental Rules with respect to communications to Respondent.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

As above demonstrated in its contentions, Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the BLIZZARD mark, most of which relate to entertainment services, online computer games, tips and strategies for computer games, and news concerning computer games.  Thus, Complainant’s federal trademark registrations establish Complainant’s rights in the BLIZZARD mark.  See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.  Respondent has the burden of refuting this presumption); see also Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning”).

Accordingly, the Panelist finds and determines that the disputed domain name, <blizzardgames.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLIZZARD mark because the domain name appropriates the entire mark and simply adds the generic term “games” to the end of the mark.

The addition of a generic term does not serve sufficiently to distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark for purposes of Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i), especially since the generic term directly relates to Complainant’s business involving computer games.  See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business).  That others may be infringing on Complainant’s marks does not provide a defense to Respondent in this matter.

The first prong of the three requisites for transfer of the disputed domain name is established.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is found and determined that Respondent has no affiliation or relationship with Complainant.  Moreover, it is found and determine that Respondent is not commonly known by BLIZZARD GAMES or <blizzardgames.com>.  Thus, Respondent has failed to establish any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy Paragraph 4(c)(ii).  See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy Paragraph 4(c)(ii) “to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail”).

The second prong of the three requisites for transfer of the disputed domain name is established.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panelist is prepared to accept Respondent’s assertion that it always has acted with good intentions, and it will not infringe on Complainant’s marks.

Nevertheless, the Panelist is required to find and determine that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

This is because not only did Respondent here have actual knowledge of Complainant’s marks, there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when, Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s famous and distinctive trademark.  This is “constructive bad faith.”

In Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., [1999] USCA9 357; 184 F.3d 1107, 1111 (CA 9th 1999), it was said:

“However,  ISS became aware of the ‘EPIX’ trademark when it applied for its own registration of  ‘EPIX.’  Adopting a designation with knowledge of its trademark status permits a presumption of intention to deceive.  See Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1059 (citing Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, [1993] USCA9 3170; 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1993)).  In turn, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion.  Sleekcraft, 559 F.2d at 354.

The “bad faith” prong of the three requisites for transfer of the disputed domain name has been established.

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 <blizzardgames.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

JUDGE IRVING H. PERLUSS (Retired), Panelist
Dated:  November 11, 2003


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/1046.html