DECISION

The British Broadcasting Corporation v. Aak

Claim Number:  FA0401000227644

PARTIES

Complainant is The British Broadcasting Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Douglas A. Rettew, of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner L.L.P., 1300 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.  Respondent is Aak (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 383, Rawalpindi, Rawalpindi, Pakistan 46000.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wwwbbcnews.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.Com (hereinafter “Directnic.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 as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on January 16, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 19, 2004.

On January 19, 2004, Directnic.Com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wwwbbcnews.com> is registered with Directnic.Com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Directnic.Com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directnic.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 January 20, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 9, 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@wwwbbcnews.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 February 16, 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 <wwwbbcnews.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BBC mark.

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

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

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

FINDINGS

Complainant, The British Broadcasting Corporation, is one of the world’s largest international media companies, employing more than 2,000 staff in 41 bureaus worldwide. Beginning in 1927, Complainant began using the BBC mark to connotate its broadcast services, including its news programming services. Complainant’s three main daily news bulletins are branded “BBC News at One,” “BBC News at Six” and “BBC News at Ten,” and the BBC News attracts, on average, 42% of the share of relevant viewers in its market. Additionally, Complainant uses the BBC mark in connection with its BBC World Service, an international radio service that reaches 150,000,000 listeners weekly. In its English language transmissions of the BBC World Service, news bulletins begin and end with the phrase “BBC News.” Complainant also owns and operates the <bbcnews.com> domain name, which had an annual budget of 15.4 million in 2003/2004.

Complainant has obtained numerous registrations for the BBC mark worldwide, including in the United States (e.g. U.S. Reg. No. 1,556,559) and in the United Kingdom (e.g. U.K. Reg. No. 1,163,265).

Respondent, Aak, registered the <wwwbbcnews.com> domain name on December 17, 2002, without license or permission to use the BBC mark for any purpose. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the <abortionistruth.com> domain name, an anti-abortion website which features graphic images of aborted fetuses. Previously, the domain name directed users to the <abortionismurder.org> domain name, which contained similar images and content.

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 rights in the BBC mark through registration of the mark with the appropriate governmental authorities worldwide. See 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).

Respondent’s <wwwbbcnews.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BBC mark. Adding the “www” prefix to Complainant’s BBC mark does not create any notable distinction from the mark. Likewise, the addition of the word “News,” which describes many of the services provided under the BBC mark, does not distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business); see also Dana Corp. v. $$$ This Domain Name Is For Sale $$$, FA 117328 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2002) (finding Respondent's <wwwdana.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's registered DANA mark because Complainant's mark remains the dominant feature).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <wwwbbcnews.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BBC mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has taken the traditional route of cybersquatters and added the letters “www” to Complainant’s famous BBC mark, and is using the domain name to direct Internet users to graphic, anti-abortion webpages. Both Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark in a “www” derivative domain name and its use of the domain name to direct unsuspecting Internet users to politically charged content operate as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name, a typosquatted version of Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in and of itself that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name vis á vis Complainant); 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”).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwbbcnews.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent is attempting to use the disputed domain name to ensnare Internet users seeking Complainant’s <bbcnews.com> domain name into viewing a graphic, anti-aboriton website. Such use may confuse Internet users into believing that the content they view is sponsored or endorsed by Complainant, tarnishing Complainant’s mark. Particularly because Respondent chose the disputed domain name because of its confusing similarity to Complainant’s famous mark, such registration and use is in bad faith. See Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period after the “www” portion of [a] web-address,” evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith); see also Journal Gazette Co. v. Domain For Sale Inc., FA 122202 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 9, 2002) (“Respondent chose the domain name to increase the traffic flowing to the <abortionismurder.org> and <thetruthpage.com> websites,” which tarnished Complainant’s mark, evidence that the domain name was registered in bad faith).

The Panel thus finds that Respondent registered and used the <wwwbbcnews.com> domain name in bad faith, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is 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 <wwwbbcnews.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

John J. Upchurch , Panelist

Dated:  March 1, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/386.html