DECISION

Broadcom Corporation v. Sakhawat Hussain a/k/a admin@netneuron.com +88.029570514 a/k/a CrystalSites Com

Claim Number:  FA0408000317650

PARTIES

Complainant is Broadcom Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Gary J. Nelson, of Christie, Parker & Hale LLP, 350 West Colorado Blvd., Suite 500, PO Box 7068, Pasadena, CA 91109-7068.  Respondent is Sakhawat Hussain a/k/a admin@netneuron.com +88.029570514 a/k/a CrystalSites Com (“Respondent”), 162 Shahid Syed Nazrul Islam Satani, Dhaka Dhaka Bangladesh 1000.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <broadcom-bd.com>, registered with Onlinenic, 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 August 24, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 25, 2004.

On August 25, 2004, Onlinenic, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <broadcom-bd.com> is registered with Onlinenic, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Onlinenic, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Onlinenic, 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 August 31, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 20, 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@broadcom-bd.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 September 29, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 <broadcom-bd.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROADCOM mark.

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

3. Respondent registered and used the <broadcom-bd.com> domain name in bad faith.

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

FINDINGS

Complainant, Broadcom Corporation, is a provider of highly integrated circuits, computer hardware and software in the field of digital broadband communications.  Complainant provides highly integrated silicon solutions that enable broadband communications and networking of voice, video and data services. 

Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the BROADCOM mark (Reg. No. 2,132,930, issued January 27, 1998, Reg. No. 2,392,925, issued July 18, 2000, Reg. No. 2,326,387, issued March 7, 2000, Reg. No. 2,625,799, issued September 24, 2002 and Reg. No. 2,595,174, issued July 16, 2002) and has been continuously using the BROADCOM mark since November 1994.  Additionally, Complainant owns European Community Trademark registration rights in the BROADCOM mark (Reg. No. 763,540, issued August 23, 1999, Reg. No. 1,311,257, issued January 2, 2001 and Reg. No. 1,319,128, issued January 22, 2001).

Respondent registered the <broadcom-bd.com> domain name on July 15, 2004 and is using the domain name to redirect Internet users to its own website offering audio-visual broadcasting and communications related products and services, including digital transmissions of voice, sound, and video imagery. 

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 BROADCOM mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and through continued use of its marks in commerce for the last ten years.  Complainant also owns European Community Trademark registration rights in the BROADCOM mark.  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 domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROADCOM mark because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and deviates from it with the addition of a hyphen and the letters “B” and “D.”  The mere addition of a hyphen and letters that do not form a word or significantly change the mark is insufficient to negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Chernow Communications, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"); see also Pep Boys Manny, Moe, and Jack v. E-Commerce Today, Ltd., AF-0145 (eResolution May 3, 2000) (finding that a hyphen between words of Complainant’s registered mark is confusingly similar); see also CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that putting a hyphen between words of Complainant’s mark is identical to and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark); see also Kelson Physician Partners, Inc. v. Mason, CPR003 (CPR 2000) (finding that <kelsonmd.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s federally registered service mark, “Kelson”).

The Panel finds that Complainant fulfilled Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

           

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.  Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests once Complainant establishes a prima facie case 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 Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by Complainant that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).

Moreover, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true because Respondent has not submitted a Response.  See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (stating that “[i]n 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 appropriating Complainant’s mark to advertise Respondent’s broadcasting and communications services.  The Panel finds that such use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark is not 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 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); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding that use of Complainant’s mark “as a portal to suck surfers into a site sponsored by Respondent hardly seems legitimate”).

Additionally, nothing in the record, including the WHOIS domain name registration information, suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. 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 Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 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 Panel finds that Complainant fulfilled Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered a domain name that contains Complainant’s well-known mark and did so for Respondent’s commercial gain.  Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet users who seek Complainant’s goods and services to Respondent’s commercial website through the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (stating that “[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant’s marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website” in holding that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also eBay, Inc v. Progressive Life Awareness Network, D2000-0068 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent is taking advantage of the recognition that eBay has created for its mark and therefore profiting by diverting users seeking the eBay website to Respondent’s site).

The Panel finds that Complainant fulfilled Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

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 <broadcom-bd.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Louis E. Condon, Panelist

Dated:  October 13, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1278.html