DECISION

DatingDirect.com Limited v. Michel Toney

Claim Number:  FA0408000314347

PARTIES

Complainant is DatingDirect.com Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Adam Taylor, of Adlex Solicitors, 76A Belsize Lane, London, NW3 5BJ, UK. Respondent is Michel Toney (“Respondent”), Pleasant Hill, CA 94523.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <singles-dating-direct.com>, registered with Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Directi.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.

John J. Upchurch Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on August 19, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 23, 2004.

On August 21, 2004, Direct Information Pvt. Ltd., d/b/a Directi.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <singles-dating-direct.com> is registered with Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Directi.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Direct Information Pvt. Ltd., d/b/a Directi.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Direct Information Pvt. Ltd., d/b/a Directi.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 August 26, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 15, 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@singles-dating-direct.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 22, 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 <singles-dating-direct.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DATING DIRECT mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <singles-dating-direct.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <singles-dating-direct.com> domain name in bad faith.

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

FINDINGS

Complainant, DatingDirect.com Limited, offers a respectable international online dating agency service for singles seeking serious friendships and relationships. Complainant has been using the mark DATING DIRECT since launching its <datingdirect.com> website in 1999.

Complainant has expended substantial time, money and energy in promoting its DATING DIRECT business and website. Since its inception through 2003, Complainant has spent approximately eleven million dollars on marketing and advertising. Complainant’s total membership as of March 2004 was 2.03 million people. Of those members, at least 1.24 million were active users and had used the website within the previous three months.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 4, 2004. Respondent is using the domain name to redirect Internet users to its own commercial website that offers dating tips and links to various dating websites.

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

Registration of a mark with a governmental authority is unnecessary for a complainant to establish rights in a mark under the Policy if a common law mark has been established. See McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2 (4th ed. 2002) (The ICANN dispute resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will suffice” to support a domain name Complaint under the Policy.); see also Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2001) (finding that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy does not require “that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist”).

Complainant has established rights in the DATING DIRECT mark through ownership of a common law mark. A common law mark is established when a complainant’s goods or services become distinctive and acquire secondary meaning. Complainant established that through Complainant’s long-term, continued use of the mark, Complainant and Complainant’s related goods and services have acquired secondary meaning and become distinctive of Complainant’s goods and services. Thus, Complainant has established secondary meaning in the DATING DIRECT mark through its continued and exclusive use. See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); see also Keppel TatLee Bank v. Taylor, D2001-0168 (WIPO Mar. 28, 2001) (“On account of long and substantial use of the said name [<keppelbank.com>] in connection with its banking business, it has acquired rights under the common law.”); see also BroadcastAmerica.com, Inc. v. Quo, DTV2000-0001 (WIPO Oct. 4, 2000) (finding that Complainant has common law rights in BROADCASTAMERICA.COM, given extensive use of that mark to identify Complainant as the source of broadcast services over the Internet, and evidence that there is wide recognition with the BROADCASTAMERICA.COM mark among Internet users as to the source of broadcast services).

Respondent’s <singles-dating-direct.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s common law mark because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely deviates with the addition of the generic term “singles,” three hyphens and the top-level domain “.com.” Incorporating Complainant’s mark in it’s entireity with the mere addition of a generic term, hyphens and a top-level domain renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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 Teleplace, Inc. v. De Oliveira, FA 95835 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the domain names <teleplace.org>, <tele-place.com>, and <theteleplace.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEPLACE trademark); see also Westfield Corp. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <westfieldshopping.com> domain name confusingly similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Casino Yahoo, Inc., D2000-0660 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2000) (finding the domain name <casinoyahoo.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark); 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). 

Furthermore, the Panel finds that the confusing similarity of Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s domain name is heightened because both Respondent and Complainant are in the same industry, i.e. the provision of online dating services. See Slep-Tone Entm't Corp. v. Sound Choice Disc Jockeys, Inc., FA 93636 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (“likelihood of confusion is further increased by the fact that the Respondent and [Complainant] operate within the same industry”); see also Vivid Video, Inc. v. Tennaro, FA 126646 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 14, 2002) (finding that any distinctiveness resulting from Respondent’s addition of a generic word to Complainant’s mark in a domain name is less significant because Respondent and Complainant operate in the same industry).

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

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <singles-dating-direct.com> domain name. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. The burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complainant as true because Respondent has not submitted a Response. See 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); see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Bavarian AG, FA110830 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2002) (finding that in the absence of a Response the Panel is free to make inferences from the very failure to respond and assign greater weight to certain circumstances than it might otherwise do).

Respondent is using the <singles-dating-direct.com> domain name to divert Internet traffic intended for Complainant to Respondent’s commercial website that provides dating tips and links to various online dating services, services similar to those Complainant offers. Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s DATING DIRECT mark to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s services to a commercial website that offers links to similar online dating services is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s diversionary use of Complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to competitors of Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) ( “[I]t would be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s operation of web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and for the same business.”); see also Am. Online Inc. v. Shenzhen JZT Computer Software Co., D2000-0809 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s operation of website offering essentially the same services as Complainant and displaying Complainant’s mark was insufficient for a finding of bona fide offering of goods or services); see also N. Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that diverted Internet users to Respondent’s competing website through the use of Complainant’s mark).

Moreover, Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no proof in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <singles-dating-direct.com> domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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"); see also 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).

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

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the <singles-dating-direct.com> domain name for its own commercial gain. Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet users wishing to search under Complainant’s DIRECT DATING mark to Respondent’s commercial website, where Respondent offers links to similar online dating services. 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 ¶ (b)(iv). See 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 Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and offering the same chat services via his website as Complainant); see also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Lab., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site); see also Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent had engaged in bad faith use and registration by linking the domain name to a website that offers services similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks).

Furthermore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the <singles-dating-direct.com> domain name for the primary purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business by redirecting Internet traffic intended for Complainant to Respondent’s website, which directly competes with Complainant by offering links to various online dating services, many of which are  Complainant’s competitors. Registration and use of a domain name for the primary purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Surface Prot. 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); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business); see also Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23, 2000) (concluding that domain names were registered and used in bad faith where Respondent and Complainant were in the same line of business in the same market area).

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 <singles-dating-direct.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated:  October 6, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1297.html