DECISION

Tellabs, Inc. v. DomainAnchor

Claim Number:  FA0409000324730

PARTIES

Complainant is Tellabs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Charles Kennedy, of Tellabs, Inc., 1415 W. Diehl Road, MS16, Naperville, IL 60563.  Respondent is DomainAnchor (“Respondent”), represented by John Oshodi, 301 S. Sherman, Ste. 117, Richardson, TX 75081.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <tellabspartner.com>, registered with Bulkregister, Llc.

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.

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on September 7, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 9, 2004.

On September 9, 2004, Bulkregister, Llc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <tellabspartner.com> is registered with Bulkregister, Llc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bulkregister, Llc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bulkregister, Llc. 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 13, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 4, 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@tellabspartner.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.

On October 14, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <tellabspartner.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELLABS mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <tellabspartner.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <tellabspartner.com> domain name in bad faith.

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant, Tellabs, Inc., owns registration rights for the TELLABS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Reg. No. 1,571,618, issued December 19, 1989).  Complainant uses the TELLABS mark in connection with telephone-related signaling and transmission products, including digital systems products, data communication products, and voice transmission products. The Digital systems products comprise of digital cross-connections, voice transcoders, T1 Channel service units, and digital echo cancellers

Respondent registered the <tellabspartner.com> domain name on June 17, 2002 and is using the domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website, listing Respondent’s products and contact information.  Additionally, Respondent’s website displays a banner promising a price quote for users interested in Respondent’s products within twenty-four hours.

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 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 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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established that it has rights in the TELLABS mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 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).

The <tellabspartner.com> domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELLABS mark because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and deviates from it only by adding the generic or descriptive term, “partner.” The mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with Complainant’s registered mark “llbean” does not circumvent Complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd.  v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of Complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Westfield Corp., Inc. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <westfieldshopping.com> domain name confusingly similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element).

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

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name that contains in its entirety Complainant’s mark. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel will assume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In fact, once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name).

Moreover, where Complainant makes the prima facie showing and Respondent does not respond, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”); see also Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true).

Respondent is using the <tellabspartner.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website, which lists Respondent’s line of products in addition to Respondent’s contact information with a banner stating Respondent’s commitment to responding to price inquiries within twenty-four hours.  Respondent’s use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELLABS mark to mislead Internet users interested in Complainant’s products to Respondent’s commercial website is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See U.S. Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Howell, FA 152457 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark and the goodwill surrounding that mark as a means of attracting Internet users to an unrelated business was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also 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, its use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use).

Furthermore, Respondent offered no evidence and no proof in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the <tellabspartner.com> domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests 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 Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).

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

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the <tellabspartner.com> domain name for commercial gain.  Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet users wishing to search under Complainant’s  mark to Respondent’s commercial website through the use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.  Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where Respondent linked <drmath.com>, which contains Complainant’s Dr. Math mark, to a website run by Respondent, creating confusion for Internet users regarding the endorsement, sponsorship, of affiliation of the website); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attracted users to a website sponsored by Respondent and created confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of that website).

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 relief shall be GRANTED.

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

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated:  October 28, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1247.html