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 >> 2004 >> [2004] GENDND 1243

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

The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. IQ Management Corporation [2004] GENDND 1243 (28 October 2004)


National Arbitration Forum

DECISION

The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. IQ Management Corporation

Claim Number: FA0409000328127

PARTIES

Complainant is The Vanguard Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Robyn Y. Ettricks, 100 Vanguard Blvd., V-26, Malvern, PA 19355.  Respondent is IQ Management Corporation (“Respondent”), Marage Plaza, Marage Road, P.O. Box 1879, Belize City, na 1, Belize.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <vangard.com>, registered with Tucows 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.

Louis E. Condon as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on September 15, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 16, 2004.

On September 15, 2004, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <vangard.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Tucows Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Inc. 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 September 22, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of October 12, 2004 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@vangard.com by e-mail.

An untimely Response was received and determined to be incomplete on October 14, 2004. In answer thereto, Complainant timely filed additional materials which were received by the Forum on October 15, 2004.

On October 18, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Louis E. Condon as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

           

            Complainant makes the following assertions:

                       

                        1.     Respondent’s <vangard.com> domain name is confusingly         

                                similar to Complainant’s VANGUARD mark.

                        2.     Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the 

                                <vangard.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <vangard.com> domain

        name in bad faith.

B. Respondent                                                                                                                                        

Respondent failed to submit a timely Response in this proceeding. Since Respondent            did not offer any justification or excuse, nor obtain an extension to submit his Response, the Panel shall issue its decision as in a default case.

C. Additional Submissions

On October 15, 2004, Complainant filed a reply to Respondent’s Response asking that the untimely filing be rejected and Respondent deemed to have defaulted. Additionally, this document further expanded on Complainant’s position that Respondent had acted in bad faith. These arguments were considered by the Panel and influenced the Panel’s decision.        

FINDINGS

Complainant is and has for many years been engaged in providing financial investment and financial advisory services, and finance and investment‑related products and services ancillary thereto, and has built a large business in connection therewith.  Complainant currently manages more than $700 billion in assets.  Complainant is one of the leading investment companies in the United States and is the largest no‑load mutual fund company in the world.  In fact, Complainant has approximately 17 million institutional and individual shareholder accounts. 

Complainant has used since at least as early as 1974 and is currently using VANGUARD as a mark and as a component of marks for a variety of financial products and services.  The VANGUARD mark is registered on the Principal Register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office for “fund investment services” as Registration No. 1,784,435 issued July 27, 1993.  Complainant is also the owner of U.S. Registration No. 2,573,723 for the VANGUARD.COM mark for “financial services, namely, for the provision of financial and investment information by means of a global computer network.”   In addition to its United States trademark registrations, Complainant also owns international trademark registrations for the mark VANGUARD in connection with funds management and investment services in Australia, Benelux, Canada, the European Community, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. 

For many years, Complainant has maintained and continues to maintain and operate a website featuring financial investment and financial advisory services at the domain address of <vanguard.com>.  Complainant’s website provides financial services to its institutional and individual investors, in addition to financial information to the non-investor public at large.  The <vanguard.com> website won top honors in Forbes’ 2000 “Best of the Web” issue and was named a “Forbes Favorite,” the highest ranking in the mutual fund family category for investing websites in its 2001, 2002 and 2004 “Best of the Web” issues.  Accordingly, with over 17 million institutional and individual shareholder accounts, the <vanguard.com> website generates a tremendous amount of visitor traffic. 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <vangard.com> on August 1, 2002. As the result of a typographical error, Complainant learned of Respondent’s registration of the domain name in October, 2002. An exchange of correspondence ensued in which Complainant asked Respondent to transfer the domain name to Complainant. Respondent refused. Complainant periodically monitored the website and determined that the domain name eventually resolved to an inactive webpage. On January 19, 2004, Complainant learned from a concerned shareholder that users who typed in <vangard.com> were directed to Respondent’s general Internet search engine. When users closed the website a pop-up window appeared containing highly offensive and extremely graphic images decrying the war in Iraq. A week later the anti-war pop-up was replaced by other pop-up advertisements.  Complainant complained to Respondent once more. In mid March 2004, Respondent altered its website at <vangard.com> so that it no longer resolved to Respondent’s general Internet search engine but to a page titled “Auctions@Vangard,” which it currently does. 

DISCUSSION

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.

Procedural issues

Respondent failed to submit its Response by the deadline set forth in accordance with ICANN Rule 5(a). Moreover, Respondent did not submit a hard copy version of the Response. Under ICANN Rules the Panel may either choose to accept or decline to accept Respondent’s Response in deciding the case. Ignoring or missing a deadline without an excuse or justification is not a minor or insignificant infraction to be overlooked in the procedural process. To rule otherwise would make reasonable time limits meaningless.

In view of Respondent’s being in default due to its failure to timely submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of 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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts that it established rights in the VANGUARD mark through registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on July 27, 1993 (Reg. No. 1,784,435).  See 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.”); see also 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 assumption).

Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent’s <vangard.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VANGUARD mark because the domain name merely misspells the mark by deleting the letter “u” from the mark.  See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000) (finding that the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark); see also Compaq Info. Techs. Group, L.P. v. Seocho, FA 103879 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2002) (finding that the domain name <compq.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMPAQ mark because the omission of the letter “a” in the domain name does not significantly change the overall impression of the mark).

In addition, the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark.  See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

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

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant argues that Respondent’s <vangard.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and in the past resolved to a website that exposed Internet users to commercial pop-up advertisements.  Furthermore, Complainant asserts that the domain name currently resolves to a website that provides links to a commercial auction website. Since  Respondent has commercially gained through use of the domain name the Panel may conclude that Respondent has not used the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to Complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee, did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the famous MSNBC mark where Respondent attempted to profit using Complainant’s mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own website).

Moreover, Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <vangard.com> domain name and therefore Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

Furthermore, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting by registering a domain name that takes advantage of inadvertent errors made by Internet users who attempt to access Complainant online, the Panel may conclude that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.  See Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2000-0330 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (finding that fair use does not apply where the domain names are misspellings of Complainant's mark); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site.”).

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

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <vangard.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and is used for commercial gain. Respondent’s commercial use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that, if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); 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 Complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).

By engaging in typosquatting, Respondent has registered and used the <vangard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors.  Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”); see also Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (finding that Respondent registered and used the <zonelarm.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because the name was merely a typosquatted version of Complainant's ZONEALARM mark. "Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).")

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

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED..

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <vangard.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: October 28, 2004


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1243.html