Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1766.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:58:56+00:00

Document:
The Respondent is Ultima Gold, with address in Burlingame, California, USA.
The disputed domain name is "icqteam.com".
The registrar of the disputed domain name is Internet Domain Registrars, with business address in San Francisco, California, USA.
(a) Complainant initiated the proceeding by the filing of a complaint via e-mail, received by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("WIPO") on December 19, 2000, and by courier mail received by WIPO on December 21, 2000. Payment by Complainant of the requisite filing fees accompanied the courier mailing. On December 21, 2000, WIPO transmitted a Request for Registrar Verification to the registrar, Internet Domain Registrars (with the Registrar�s Response received by WIPO on December 21, 2000).
(b) On December 22, 2000, WIPO transmitted notification of the complaint and commencement of the proceeding to Respondent via e-mail and courier mail.
(c) On December 22, 2000, Respondent transmitted an e-mail query to WIPO regarding the transmission of documents, as well as denying a factual allegation set forth in the complaint, and requesting that it be able to communicate with the parties via e-mail in view of its location in the Ukraine. WIPO replied to this e-mail message. No further communications were thereafter received from Respondent in this matter.
(f) On January 18, 2001, Complainant and Respondent were notified by WIPO of the appointment of the undersigned sole panelist as the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") in this matter. WIPO notified the Panel that, absent exceptional circumstances, it would be required to forward its decision to WIPO by February 1, 2001. On, January 18, 2001, the Panel received an electronic file in this matter by e-mail from WIPO. The Panel subsequently received a hard copy of the file in this matter by courier mail from WIPO.
Complainant has filed an application for trademark and service mark registration for the term "ICQ" on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Serial No. 75381414, filed October 19, 1997, published for opposition September 19, 2000, in International Classes 9, 42, 35, 36, 38 and 41, covering, inter alia, computer programs, providing information via computer networks, telecommunications services, providing financial information by electronic means, and providing entertainment by electronic means (claimed date of first use November 1996)(Complaint, paragraph12, and Annex B).
Complainant has registered the term "ICQ" as a trademark and/or service mark in a number of countries other than the United States, including Austria (Reg. No. 182,871, dated June 29, 1999), Australia (Reg. No. 776100, dated October 19, 1998); Chile (Reg. No. 539,497, dated April 27, 1999); Denmark (Reg. No. 01938/1999, dated June 9, 1999 and Reg. No. 04498/1998, dated June 9, 1999); Finland (Reg. No. 215094, dated August 13, 1999); France (Reg. No. 987539983, dated October 13, 1998, published June 18, 1999)(id.).
Complainant has registered the domain name "icq.com" and uses that name in connection with hosting an active website and business at Internet address "www.icq.com". The principal business conducted on Complainant�s "www.icq.com" website is allowing Internet users to meet and communicate through Complainant�s "ICQ" service. Complainant�s "ICQ" service has over one hundred million subscribers worldwide (id., paragraph 12 and Annex E).
Complainant has used the term "ICQ" in combination with other terms to identify services on its "www.icq.com" website, including "ICQ SMS", "ICQmail", "ICQphone", "ICQ Surf" and "ICQ Radio".
According to the registrar�s verification response to WIPO, dated December 21, 2000, "Ultima Gold", at "1534 Plaza Ln., #112, Burlingame, CA 94010, US", is the listed registrant of the domain name "icqteam.com". The listed Administrative Contact is "Pavlus, Oleg", at "Kreshchatyk Str, 1, Kiev, UA 01011, Ukraine". The registration date for the disputed domain name is October 25, 2000.
Now you can create your own ICQTM server instead of icq.mirabilis.com! If you are an organization with your own IntraNet or just a group of friends who want to communicate separately from main ICQTM server and do not want the Big Brother to read all your messages - our ICQTM Server is perfect for you! You can have 4-digits UINs, send messages, files, URL's - no difference from main ICQTM server! Lots of other functions available! Read more.
Do you want to send a message or URL from your friend's ICQ#? Or is it possible to send system message from UIN 1 to your enemy with a warning that his UIN will be unregistered? Or birthday reminder with your own words? All this is possible with our great software - ICQTM System Messenger! Try it and it will become the great part of your ICQ life. Read more.
If you are a LAN user and your ICQ is often N/A, or you just want to have fun - use ICQTM Autoresponder. You can launch your UIN in any mode you want including Invisible, you can create Visible, Invisible and Ignore lists, configure custom messages to your friends. You can create your Contact list, watch who is online and even send messages to people from your contact list directly from ICQTM Autoresponder! Great tool for everyone! Read more.
Do you think it necessary to steal someone's ICQ number to talk with other people from it? With this great program you can send and receive messages from any UIN you want! Now you can find out all secrets of your enemy or have fun on your friends.
FREEWARE PROGRAMS: ICQTM IP SNIFFER, ICQTM CHANGE INFO AND OTHERS.
Find out your friend's IP Address, version of ICQ client, put e-mail without @ sign, remove all registry limits with our freeware programs"
The Service Agreement in effect between Respondent and Internet Domain Registrars subjects Respondent to Internet Domain Registrars� dispute settlement policy, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, as adopted by ICANN on August 26, 1999, and with implementing documents approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") requires that domain name registrants submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding conducted by an approved dispute resolution service provider, of which WIPO is one, regarding allegations of abusive domain name registration (Policy, paragraph 4(a)).
Complainant states that it has registered the trademark and service mark "ICQ" in a number of countries, and has applied for registration of that mark in the United States (see Factual Background supra).
Complainant states that it uses the "ICQ" mark in connection with its website at "www.icq.com", that its mark and website are well known among Internet users, and that it uses the "ICQ" mark in combination with various other terms to identify services on its commercial website (see id).
"9. In October 2000, long after AOL's adoption and first use of the ICQ Marks, and long after the ICQ Marks became well-known and famous, Respondent registered the domain name �icqteam.com� (the �ICQ Domain Name�) and began using it in connection with a commercial Website that sells software intended to interact with AOL�s ICQ service. See Annex [hereto].
"10. The ICQ Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ICQ Marks, including the famous mark ICQ. The ICQ Domain Name is particularly confusing because it links to a Website (see Annex [hereto]) called �ICQ Team� that makes prominent use of AOL�s ICQ Marks. The software that is sold and distributed at the site interacts with the ICQ service but Respondent is not authorized by AOL to create or distribute such software. The use of the mark ICQ in a domain name and Website in connection with services that are very similar to, and interact with, those services provided by AOL, is likely to confuse consumers into believing AOL endorses or is affiliated with Respondent�s service.
"11. Respondent registered and used the ICQ Domain Name in bad faith to capitalize and profit from the famous mark ICQ and the goodwill AOL has built up in its ICQ mark.
(a) Respondent�s bad faith registration and use of the domain name is evidenced by the fact that Respondent registered �icqteam.com� many years after AOL's adoption and first use of its ICQ Marks (copies of the Whois records for the ICQ Domain Name is included as Annex [hereto]).
(b) On November 21, 2000, Counsel for AOL sent Respondent a letter via certified mail, explaining AOL�s rights in its ICQ marks and requesting that Respondent cease its infringing use of the ICQ mark. A copy of AOL�s letter is attached as Annex [hereto]. Respondent responded by claiming that it is not the true operator of the Website but, rather, it merely registered the domain name on behalf of a Russian entity that operates the site and distributes the software. Because Ultima Gold is the official registrant of �icqteam.com,� and because AOL was unable to contact the Russian entity, AOL was forced to file this complaint to protect its valuable intellectual property.
(c) Respondent�s bad faith use of the ICQ Domain Name is further evidenced by Respondent�s use of the domain name in connection with a commercial Website that makes prominent use of the ICQ mark. See Annex [hereto] for Website. Respondent�s prominent use of the ICQ marks at a Website called ICQ Team that sells ICQ software aggravates Respondent�s infringement and is likely to lead consumers to falsely believe that AOL endorses or is affiliated with Respondent or its Website. Respondent�s prominent references to the ICQ service prove that Respondent has knowledge of the ICQ service and mark and that Respondent is using the domain name �icqteam.com� and the name ICQ Team in an effort to confuse consumers and divert them to Respondent�s Website. Respondent�s registration and use of the ICQ Domain Name in this manner demonstrates its bad faith attempt to profit from the goodwill that AOL has created in its ICQ mark.
(d) Respondent�s bad faith registration and use of the Infringing Domain Name is demonstrated by the fact that the software sold at �icqteam.com� is intended to subvert or sabotage the ICQ system. For example, Respondent�s software allows Internet users to �steal someone�s ICQ number.� See Annex [hereto].
(e) In numerous similar ICANN proceedings, the arbitration Panel has determined that actions similar to those of Respondent�s constitute a bad faith registration and use of the ICQ mark. See, e.g., America Online, Inc. v. OICQ.com, Ltd. (FA-0004000094420); America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Communications (FA0002000093668); America Online, Inc. v. Chinese ICQ Network (D2000-0808); America Online, Inc. v. Shenzhen JZT Computer Software Co., Ltd. (D2000-0809).
Respondent has not formally replied to Complainant�s contentions. In an e-mail message to WIPO, Respondent disputed Complainant�s assertion that its software allows Internet users to "�steal someone�s ICQ number�", stating "Our software has no such features and no such text was ever present on any of our web pages. AOL simply made it up to influence the Panel, and we hope the Panel takes their deception into account."
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999 (with implementing documents approved on October 24, 1999), is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration. This sole panelist has in an earlier decision discussed the background of the administrative panel procedure, and the legal characteristics of domain names, and refers to this earlier decision for such discussion. (Footnote 1) The Panel will confine itself to making determinations necessary to resolve this administrative proceeding.
In this case, the Panel is satisfied that WIPO took all steps reasonably necessary to notify the Respondent of the filing of the complaint and initiation of these proceedings, and that the failure of the Respondent to furnish a reply is not due to any omission by WIPO. Respondent�s Administrative Contact acknowledged receipt of notification of the complaint from WIPO.
As a threshold matter, the Panel notes that in communication with Complainant, the U.S.-address listed registrant of the disputed domain name claims to have registered the name on behalf of a Ukrainian entity. In an administrative proceeding conducted under the Policy, the order of a panel is directed to the registrar of a disputed domain name. An order to transfer a name requires a registrar to change the listed registrant of the name. Although a panel may treat an entity other than the listed registrant as a beneficial registrant for purposes of evaluating facts and circumstances in a proceeding, the named registrant must be identified as the Respondent. In this proceeding, Ultima Gold is the listed registrant of the disputed domain name, and is the Respondent. The fact that the asserted beneficial registrant of the disputed domain name is located in the Ukraine does not in any event affect the Panel�s determination in this matter.
In a recent proceeding involving the Complainant in this matter, this sole panelist determined that Complainant has rights in the trademark and service mark "ICQ". (Footnote 2) In light of that earlier determination, and the substantial evidence of trademark and service mark registrations outside the United States submitted by Complainant in this proceeding, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the trademark and service mark "ICQ". The Panel notes that Respondent has acknowledged Complainant�s rights in the "ICQ" mark on its "www.icqteam.com" home page (see Factual Background supra).
Complainant�s "ICQ" mark is well known among Internet users as identifying Complainant as the provider of communications services on its "www.icq.com" website. Complainant�s use of the "ICQ" mark, claimed as first used in 1996 (in its USPTO application for registration), and registered outside the United States at least as early as October 19, 1998, preceded Respondent�s registration of the disputed domain name on October 25, 2000.
The disputed domain name (1) incorporates Complainant�s "ICQ" mark, (2) adds the term "team", and (3) adds the generic top level domain (gTLD) ".com".
By adding the noun "team" (generally used to refer to a group working together) to Complainant�s mark, Respondent does not create a new or different mark in which it has rights. Complainant�s "ICQ" mark is distinctive, and Complainant commonly uses its mark in combination with descriptive terms, such as "phone" and "radio". In light of the well-known nature of Complainant�s "ICQ" mark, and its common use by Complainant with appended descriptive terms, Internet users seeing Respondent�s "icqteam.com" domain name would likely associate it with Complainant as a source of services.
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name "icqteam.com" is confusingly similar to Complainant�s "ICQ" mark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant has thus established the first of the three elements necessary to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration.
Respondent has not affirmatively asserted a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
There does not appear on the record of this proceeding any indication that Respondent may have been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent�s website is replete with direct references to Complainant�s services. It is clear that Respondent has used Complainant�s mark in its domain name with specific reference to Complainant and its services, and with the intent to take advantage of the well-known character of Complainant�s mark. Respondent did not reasonably initiate a good faith offer of services in the belief that Complainant did not object (and Complainant, in fact, promptly objected). Respondent did not use the mark prior to notice of a dispute in connection with a bona fide offer of services.
Respondent has not made fair use of Complainant�s mark in its domain name. Complainant�s mark is not descriptive, and Respondent did not make use of the mark in a commonly descriptive sense. Although there is some leeway open to junior users of marks for purposes such as limited comparative advertising, Respondent�s use of Complainant�s mark is not along these lines. Respondent has used Complainant�s mark to attract Internet users to a website that offers software and services that take advantage of Complainant�s existing business and services. On its website, Respondent has labeled its own products with the "ICQ" mark (e.g., "ICQ Server", "ICQ System Messenger", "ICQ Autoresponder"). Respondent�s inclusion of the letters "TM" in superscript following "ICQ", and its legal disclaimer notice, do not transform its confusing use of Complainant�s mark into a fair use. (Footnote 4) Respondent�s use of Complainant�s mark in the disputed domain name is for the commercial purpose of attracting Internet users to its website location by creating confusion as to Complainant�s sponsorship of or affiliation with its website. As such, Respondent has failed to establish a fair use of Complainant�s mark.
Respondent has intentionally used Complainant�s mark to confuse Internet users as to Complainant�s sponsorship of or affiliation with a website that Respondent operates for commercial gain. This constitutes bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel will therefore request the registrar to transfer the domain name "icqteam.com" to the Complainant.
Based on its finding that the Respondent, Ultima Gold, has engaged in abusive registration and use of the domain name "icqteam.com" within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel orders that the domain name "icqteam.com" be transferred to the Complainant, America Online, Inc.
See Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, Case No. D2000-0044, decided March 16, 2000.
See America Online, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, also known as Cupcake Message, Cupcake Messenger, The Cupcake Secret, Cupcake Patrol, Cupcake City, and The Cupcake Incident, Case No. D2000-1495, decided January 22, 2001.
See Sporty's Farm v. Sportsman's Market, 202 F.3d 489, 498 (2d Cir. 2000), citing Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999). The Panel notes that in an earlier administrative proceeding it recognized Complainant�s rights in the service mark "AOL.COM" based, inter alia, on the USPTO�s grant of registration for that mark. See America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart, Case No. D2000-0713, decided August 24, 2000.
Regarding the distinction between confusing use and fair use, see, e.g., Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders v. Pussycat Cinema, 604 F.2d 200, (2d Cir. 1979), Zatarains v. Oakgrove Smokehouse, 698 F.2d 786, (5th Cir. 1983) and additional cases cited in J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition �11:47, n. 1 (4th ed. 1996 and updated).
If such were the case, any trademark or service mark could be used to entice consumers into a store, so long as such consumers were eventually advised that the store owner was not authorized to use the trademark or service mark. This is not the case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.