national arbitration forum

DECISION

Bob Jones University v. Stefan Stukenberg d/b/a Stukenberg Telecom

Claim Number:  FA0410000358041

PARTIES

Complainant is Bob Jones University (“Complainant”), represented by James M. Bagarazzi, of Dority & Manning, Post Office Box 1449, Greenville, SC 29602-1449.  Respondent is Stefan Stukenberg d/b/a Stukenberg Telecom (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bju.net>, 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.

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 29, 2004; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 1, 2004.

On November 1, 2004, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <bju.net> is with Tucows Inc. and that 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 November 5, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 29, 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@<bju.net> by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On December 7, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 <bju.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s BJU mark.

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

3. Respondent registered and used the <bju.net> domain name in bad faith.

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

FINDINGS

Complainant, Bob Jones University, was established in 1927 as an institution of higher learning.

Complainant established through extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it owns a trademark for the BJU mark, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,146,427, issued March 24, 1998) for goods and services relating to education. Complainant’s first use of the BJU mark in commerce was in 1967.

Respondent registered the <bju.net> domain name on May 4, 1998.  Respondent is using the domain name to direct Internet users to a commercial health and wellness website that is completely unrelated to Complainant’s mark.

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 established that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the BJU mark through registration with the USPTO. 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 that Respondent registered, <bju.net>, is identical to Complainant’s BJU mark because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and only deviates with the addition of the generic top-level domain “.net.” The mere addition of a generic top-level domain does not negate the confusing similarity between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding that <mysticlake.net> is plainly identical to Complainant’s MYSTIC LAKE trademark and service mark); see also Nike, Inc. v. Coleman, D2000-1120 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that the domain name <nike.net> is identical to Complainant’s famous NIKE mark).

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

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint.  Therefore, the Panel accepts all reasonable allegations set forth in the Complaint as true.  See Am. Online, Inc. v. Clowers, FA 199821 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 14, 2003) (finding that the failure to challenge a complainant’s allegations allows a panel to accept all of the complainant’s reasonable allegations and inferences as true); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that the failure to respond to a complaint allows a panel to make reasonable inferences in favor of a complainant and accept the complainant’s allegations as true).

In addition, the Panel construes Respondent’s failure to respond as an admission that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Domain Deluxe, FA 269166 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2004) (“The failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint functions both as an implicit admission that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the domain names, as well as a presumption that Complainant’s reasonable allegations are true.”).

Furthermore, nothing in the record establishes that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Moreover, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to register or use domain names that incorporate Complainant’s mark.  Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the 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 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).

Respondent uses the <bju.net> domain name to redirect Internet users to an unrelated commercial website.  While this appears to be a legitimate business, nothing at the disputed domain name references the BJU mark.  Using Complainant’s mark and the goodwill surrounding that mark in a domain name as a means of attracting Internet users to an unrelated business is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Similarly, such diversionary use of Complainant’s mark for a commercially oriented website is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Stonybrook Invs., LTD, FA 100182 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where Respondent was using Complainant’s mark to redirect Internet users to a website offering credit card services unrelated to those services legitimately offered under Complainant’s mark); see also 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).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the <bju.net> domain name for Respondent’s commercial gain. Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website that is completely unrelated to Complainant’s educational services. Respondent’s acts of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, through the use of a identical domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(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 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); see also 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)).

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 <bju.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated:  December 20, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1548.html