|
The complainant in this case is Aston Chase
Limited, a company registered in the United Kingdom. Its address is 69/71
Park road,
London, England, United Kingdom. Its authorized representative in
these proceedings is DL Legal LLP, Solicitors.
The respondent is Lawrence Snare. Mr. Snare of Box 120, 3440 Lehigh Street,
Allentown, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Respondent has not
appointed any representative in these proceedings.
The domain name in dispute is <astonchase.com>. The Registrar of the
domain name is eNom, Inc., the address of which is
2002 156th Ave. NE, Suite
#300, Unigard Park, McKinley Building, Bellevue, Washington, United States of
America (“eNom”).
On 19 January 2004, pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(“the Policy”), the Rules for the Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (“the Rules”) and Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre
Supplemental Rules (“the
HKIAC Supplemental Rules”), the Complainant
submitted a complaint in the English language in electronic format to the
Hong
Kong International Arbitration Centre (the "HKIAC”), an office of
the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre and elected
this case to be
dealt with by a one-person panel. The Complaint was submitted in hardcopy on
28 February 2004. On 1 March 2004,
Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre
sent to the complainant by email an acknowledgement of the receipt of the
complaint
and reviewed the format of the complaint for compliance with the
Policy, the Rules and the HKIAC Supplemental Rules. All correspondence
to and
from the HKIAC described herein was in the English language.
On 17 March 2004 Complainant submitted to the HKIAC an amended Complaint.
On 14 April 2004 the HKIAC notified the Respondent of the commencement of the
action.
On 13 May 2004, the HKIAC notified the Complaint that the Respondent had
failed to submit a Response.
Since the Respondent did not file a response in accordance with the time
specified in the Rules the HKIAC Supplemental Rules,
and the Notification,
the HKIAC informed Complainant and Respondent by email about the default,
stating that, as Respondent did
not file a response within the required time,
the HKIAC would appoint the panelist to proceed to render the decision, in the
absence of a response by Respondent.
On 20 May 2004, the HKIAC notified the parties that the Panel in this case
had been selected, with M. Scott Donahey acting as
the sole panelist. The
Panel determines that the appointment was made in accordance with Rules 6 and
Articles. 8 and 9 of the
Supplemental Rules.
On 28 May 2004, the Panel received the file from HKIAC.
|
|
The Panel finds that the domain name
<astonchase.com> is identical to the mark ASTON CHASE in which
Complainant has rights,
since from the very outset of the UDRP, Panels have
disregarded the TLD in comparing domain names to marks. Digitronics
Inventioneering
Corporation v. @Six.Net Registered, WIPO Case No. D2000-0008;
Credit Management Solutions, Inc. v. Collex Resource Management,
WIPO Case
No. D2000-0029. The lack of a space has no legal significance in determining
identicality. Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness
Outlet Inc., WIPO Case No.
D2000-0127. Where the domain names are identical, the issue of likelihood of
confusion is not germane.
Shirmax Retail Ltd./Detaillants/Shirmax LTEE v. CES
Marketing Group, Inc., eResolution Case No. AF0104.
|
|
Complainant has in a credible way alleged that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain
name
at issue. Respondent has failed to show that Respondent has any rights
or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at
issue. This entitles
the Panel to infer that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
respect of the domain name at
issue. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services,
Inc. v. Lauren Raymond, WIPO Case No. D2000 0007; Ronson Plc v. Unimetal
Sanayi ve
Tic. A.S., WIPO Case No. D2000 0011. Accordingly, the Panel finds
that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the
domain name.
|
|
At the time that the
Complaint was filed, the domain name at issue was being used to resolve to a
web site on which pornography
was posted. The domain name was transferred
following the filing of the Complaint in this matter. The domain name is
being used
by the current registrant (the transferee) to resolve to a web
site at which listings for real property are located. As Complainant
is an
agent for the sale of real properties, an Internet user is likely to be
confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation
or endorsement of the web
site. Moreover, the site features pop-up advertising and
"mousetrapping," so that it is obvious
that the domain name holder
is deriving revenue from this use. This is evidence of bad faith registration
and use under paragraph
4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that
Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
|
