DECISION

Diners Club International Ltd. v. Sajeda Ali

Claim Number:  FA0404000250823

PARTIES

Complainant is Diners Club International Ltd., (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady, of Ladas & Parry, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60604.  Respondent is Sajeda Ali (“Respondent”), 91 Cranford Lane, Heston Middlesex, TW5 9HQ UK.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <asiandinersclub.com>, 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.

James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on April 7, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 8, 2004.

On April 8, 2004, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <asiandinersclub.com> is registered 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 April 9, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 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@asiandinersclub.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 May 28, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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 <asiandinersclub.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark.

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

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

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

FINDINGS

Complainant, Diner’s Club International Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, a leading global financial services organization.  Complainant is a leading provider of financial services to individuals, small businesses, and large corporations through many channels of trade, including but not limited to credit card services.  Complainant began operating under the famous DINERS CLUB mark in 1965.  Credit cards issued by Complainant under its DINERS CLUB mark are accepted in over 200 countries, at over 7.6 million locations around the world, at 700,000 ATMs and are issued in 64 local currencies.  Complainant’s products and services sold under the DINERS CLUB mark are advertised and promoted across the United States and around the world.

           

            Respondent registered the <asiandinersclub.com> domain name on December 2, 2003.          

Respondent is using the domain name to promote, among other services, web diversion  schemes.  Respondent uses the domain name to harbor a website offering for sale services known as “web diversion” and “e-mail diversion” and also domain name registrations, internet hosting, domain name auction services, web design services and online marketing services.  Furthermore, Respondent indicated to Complainant in its return of voluntary transfer that Respondent intended to offer restaurant/dining promotion services in direct competition with the core Diners Club Services. 

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 with extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has rights to the DINERS CLUB mark as evidenced by its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and by continuous use of its mark in commerce for the last thirty-nine years.  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).

Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark because the domain name incorporates a combination of Complainant’s mark and only deviates with the addition of the generic or descriptive word “asian.”  The mere addition of a generic or descriptive term does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with Complainant’s registered mark “llbean” does not circumvent Complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd.  v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of Complainant combined with a generic word or term).

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 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.  See  Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint).  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).

Furthermore, 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) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”)

Respondent is using the <asiandinersclub.com> domain name to direct Internet users to a website that is used to promote, among other services, web diversion schemes.  The website associated with the offending domain offers for sale services known as “web diversion” and “email diversion” and domain name registrations, internet hosting, domain name auction services, web design services, and online marketing services.  The Panel finds that this diversion of Internet consumers, is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See U.S. Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Howell III, 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); see also Disney Enterss, Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s diversionary use of Complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names).

Moreover, nothing in the record, including the WHOIS domain name registration information, suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the <asiandinersclub> domain name or by Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  Therefore, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed 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 Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).

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

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent intentionally registered a domain name that contains in its entirety Complainant’s well-known mark and did so for Respondent’s commercial gain.  Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet users who seek Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark to Respondent’s commercial website through the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.  Furthermore, Respondent is unfairly and opportunistically benefiting from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s DINERS CLUB 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, D2001-0068 (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).

Respondent’s registration of the domain name, a domain name that incorporates Complainant’s well-known registered mark in its entirety and deviates only with the addition of a generic or descriptive term, suggests that Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the DINERS CLUB mark.  Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent likely chose the <asiandinersclub.com> domain name based on the distinctive and well-known qualities of Complainant’s mark.  See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that "[w]hile an intent to confuse consumers is not required for a finding of trademark infringement, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion"). 

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

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 <asiandinersclub.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist

Dated:  June 11, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/766.html