Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0288.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:03:26+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Nutri/System IPHC, Inc., of Delaware, United States of America, represented by the law firm High Swartz LLP.
The Respondent is Sinclare Vabalon, of Gibraltar, Oversees Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The disputed domain name is <nutrisystem56.com>. It is registered with Basic Fusion, Inc., (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the Center on February 26, 2008.
On February 28, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a Request for Registrar Verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 29, 2008, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name, providing the registrant contact details for the disputed domain name, and confirming that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”) applies to the domain name.
In accordance with Rules paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and this proceeding commenced on March 3, 2008. The Center advised the Respondent that the due date for its Response was March 23, 2008.
The Respondent failed to file a Response within the prescribed time limit or at all, and the Center delivered a Notification of Respondent Default to the Respondent on March 25, 2008.
The Center appointed Bradley J. Freedman as the sole Panelist in this proceeding on March 31, 2008. The Panelist submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Rules paragraph 7.
The following information is derived from the Complaint, supporting documents submitted by the Complainant and the Panel’s own access to the Respondent’s website using the disputed domain name. (This practice has been adopted by numerous panels: see Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA v. David Sallen, Sallen Enterprises, and J. D. Sallen Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2000-0461 (July 17, 2000), The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO Case No. D2002-1064 (January 20, 2003) and Forbes LLC v. Web Development Group Ltd., D2006-1655 (May 9, 2007)).
The Complainant and its corporate family are a leading provider of weight-loss programs based on quality foods and nutritionally balanced meal plans. Their business features the trademark and trade name NUTRISYSTEM. They have operated their business under the NUTRISYSTEM brand since 1972, and provide services throughout the United States of America and around the world. In 2007, their total net revenues were $774 million, and they spent $180 million marketing their brand in that year.
The Complainant is the owner of various trademarks containing the word “Nutrisystem” or the combination of the words “Nutri” and “System” for use in association with various goods and services relating to food, nutrition and weigh loss, including the trademark NUTRISYSTEM registered in the United States of America (see Reg. Nos. 1,251,922; 1,297,847; 1,731,373; 1,776,989; 1,956,649 and 1,429,657) and the trademark NUTRISYSTEM.COM registered in the United States of America (see Reg. Nos. 2,492,546 and 2,492,546). The registration dates for those trademarks go as far back as September 20, 1983 (see Reg. Nos. 1,251,922).
The disputed domain name was registered on December 22, 2007.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that provides a search service, categorized “top searches”, and “popular links” to third party websites, all relating to a number of different topics (including travel, finance, services and entertainment). Use of the search service results in the display of various “sponsored links” to third party websites. There is no reference to the Complainant’s Nutrisystem business on the website, other than the heading “Welcome to nutrisystem56.com” title of the website.
The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the trademarks NUTRISYSTEM or NUTRISYSTEM.COM.
In January 2008, the Complainant’s counsel sent an email to the Respondent demanding the Respondent transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of the email, but did not agree to the Complainant’s demands.
(a) The Complainant is the registered owner of the trademarks NUTRISYSTEM and NUTRISYSTEM.COM and related trademarks, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks NUTRISYSTEM and NUTRISYSTEM.COM.
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because the disputed domain name has no connection to the Respondent or any legitimate business offering of the Respondent or any legitimate non-commercial fair use by the Respondent.
(c) The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith for the following reasons: (i) the Respondent had constructive, if not actual, knowledge of the Complainant’s well-known NUTRISYSTEM trademark when he registered the domain name; (ii) the Respondent is preventing the Complainant from controlling its NUTRISYSTEM brand on the Internet; and (iii) the Respondent is generating revenue by using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to third party websites.
The Policy is narrow in scope. It applies only to disputes involving alleged bad faith registration and use of domain names – conduct commonly known as “cybersquatting” or “cyberpiracy”. The Policy does not apply to other kinds of disputes between trademark owners and domain name registrants. The narrow scope of the Policy reflects its origin as a novel form of dispute resolution designed to balance a wide range of perspectives regarding the regulation of Internet conduct.
The Complainant is the owner of the registered trademarks NUTRISYSTEM and NUTRISYSTEM.COM, and contends that the NUTRISYSTEM trademark is well-known, by virtue of its extensive and long-term adoption and use. The Complainant’s assertions in this regard are supported by documentary evidence. The Respondent has not filed a reply to the Complaint or contested the Complainant’s assertions. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the trademarks NUTRISYSTEM and NUTRISYSTEM.COM.
The trademarks NUTRISYSTEM and NUTRISYSTEM.COM were registered in the United States of America long before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
The Policy requires that the disputed domain name be “identical or confusingly similar” to the trademarks NUTRISYSTEM and NUTRISYSTEM.COM. Neither the Policy nor the Rules provide any guidance with respect to the test to be applied regarding the confusing similarity requirement of the Policy. Nevertheless, the consensus reflected in the decisions is that the appropriate test for confusing similarity is a literal comparison of the disputed domain name and the complainant’s trademark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, section 1.1.
The literal comparison approach is supported by a number of considerations, which have been discussed in various decisions. See: Pancil, LLC v. Wan-Fu China, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-0492 (May 31, 2007) and Highlights for Children, Inc. v. Services LLC, WIPO Case No. D2007-0337 (May 28, 2007). For those reasons, the Panel considers the appropriate test for confusing similarity to be a literal comparison of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel also notes that the “.com” suffix is irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether a challenged domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Rather, one looks to the second level domain for such a determination, since the “.com” suffix is merely descriptive of the registry services. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Boris Karpachev, WIPO Case No. D2000-1571 (January 15, 2001) and Ticketmaster Corporation. v. Harold R. Brown, II, Harold R. Brown III and Ted Waitt, WIPO Case No. D2001-0716 (July 18, 2001).
The disputed domain name and the trademarks NUTRISYSTEM and NUTRISYSTEM.COM are visually and phonetically similar. The disputed domain name contains the NUTRISYSTEM trademark in its entirety. The only difference between the NUTRISYSTEM trademark and the disputed domain name is the addition of the non-descriptive numerical suffix “56”. The Complainant’s NUTRISYSTEM trademark remains the dominant part of the disputed domain name, and the addition of the numerical suffix does not distinguish the domain name from the NUTRISYSTEM trademark. In similar circumstances, other panels have come to the same conclusion. See SENSIS Pty Ltd., Research Resources Pty Ltd. v. Kevin Goodall, WIPO Case No. D2006-0793 (August 22, 2006) and Atlas Copco Aktiebolag v. Andreas Clara, WIPO Case No. D2007-0039 (March 9, 2007).
In addition, in light of the foregoing and in the absence of any explanation or rationale put forward by the Respondent for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the domain name was intended by the Respondent to be confusing with the trademarks NUTRISYSTEM and NUTRISYSTEM.COM.
For those reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks NUTRISYSTEM and NUTRISYSTEM.COM. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element required by the Policy.
The second element required by Policy paragraph 4(a) – the registrant has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name – requires the Complainant to prove a negative proposition, which can be particularly difficult. The consensus reflected in the decisions is that the burden of proof on a complainant regarding this element is necessarily light, because the nature of the registrant’s rights or legitimate interests, if any, in a domain name lies most directly within the registrant’s knowledge. As a practical matter, once a complainant makes a prima facie showing that a registrant does not have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the evidentiary burden shifts to the registrant to rebut the showing by providing evidence of its rights or interests in the domain name. See Nicole Kidman v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake Party, WIPO Case No. D2000-1415 (January 23, 2001), Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Khaled Ali Soussi, WIPO Case No. D2000-0252 (July 5, 2000) and Alfa Laval AB, Laval Corporate AB v. Caribbean Online International Ltd.(ALFALAVALL-COM-DOM), WIPO Case No. D2007-1893 (February 27 2008).
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent’s use of the NUTRISYSTEM trademark or any domain name incorporating the NUTRISYSTEM trademark, and the disputed domain name is not in any way identified with, or related to a legitimate interest of, the Respondent.
Except for the assertions in the signed and certified Complaint, the Complainant has not provided any evidence of trademark searches or other investigations to indicate that the Respondent does not have any interest in any marks that include the term “nutrisystem” and is not commonly known as “nutrisystem”. In some circumstances, the omission of such evidence would be fatal to a complaint under the Policy. Nevertheless, in the circumstances of this dispute, including the apparent lack of legitimate connection or relationship between the disputed domain name and the Respondent’s name and business or the website for which the disputed domain name is used by the Respondent, the signed and certified Complaint together with an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint or provide any justification for his registration and use of the disputed domain name, are sufficient to satisfy the Complainant’s evidentiary burden.
To satisfy the requirements of Policy paragraph 4(c)(i), the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name must be in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In some circumstances, a website providing links to search results or other websites might constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. In the circumstances of this case, however, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not bona fide within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) because: (a) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and widely known NUTRISYSTEM trademark; (b) there is no apparent connection or relationship between the disputed domain name and the Respondent’s name or business; and (c) the Respondent does not use the domain name to advertise or sell his own wares and services, but merely for a website that provides “sponsored” links to other websites. See Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2002-0775 (October 2, 2002), Highlights for Children, Inc. v. Services LLC, WIPO Case No. D2007-0337 (May 28, 2007) and Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Spr�ngli AG v. Jules Mass & Yuan Yuan Chou, WIPO Case No. D2007-0446 (May 29 2007).
In addition, the Panel draws an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to provide any explanation or rationale for his use of the disputed domain name.
Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not applicable. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a website that provides “sponsored” links to commercial websites.
Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) applies if the Complainant establishes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to confuse and thereby divert Internet traffic to his website for commercial gain. There is no direct evidence that the Respondent knew of the Complainant or its NUTRISYSTEM trademark, or intended to use the disputed domain name to confuse and divert Internet users. Nevertheless, the Respondent’s knowledge and intention may be determined by commonsense inferences from circumstantial evidence.
The Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the NUTRISYSTEM trademark, and registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to confuse and divert Internet users to the Respondent’s website, based upon the following circumstances: (a) the Complainant’s registered NUTRISYSTEM trademark is specific to the Complainant in connection with its products and services, and is widely known as a result of extensive and long term advertising and use; (b) there is no apparent connection or relationship between the disputed domain name and the Respondent or his business or the website for which the Respondent uses the disputed domain name; (c) the Respondent does not use the domain name to sell his own wares and services, but merely to provide links to other websites; (d) there is no other apparent legitimate justification for the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name for his website; and (e) the Respondent has not denied any knowledge of the Complainant or its NUTRISYSTEM trademark.
In addition, the Panel draws an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to provide any explanation or rationale for his registration and use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that the Respondent’s website results in commercial gain to the Respondent. It is well known that many websites generate substantial revenue by directing traffic to other websites and search results. Based upon the information apparent from the current “www.nutrisystem56.com” website, and in the absence of any explanation by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s website generates revenue for the Respondent in that manner.
The practice of registering domain names based upon well-known trademarks for the purpose of diverting users to unrelated websites that generate advertising revenue for the registrant is bad faith registration and use. See Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2002-0775 (October 2, 2002), Amazon.com, Inc. v. Steven Newman a/k/a Jill Wasserstein a/k/a Pluto Newman, WIPO Case No. D2006-0517 (June 28, 2006); Forbes LLC v. Web Development Group Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2006-1655 (May 9, 2007); Pancil, LLC v. Wan-Fu China, Ltd., WIPO Case No. WIPO Case No. D2007-0492 (May 31, 2007) and Highlights for Children, Inc. v. Services LLC, WIPO Case No. D2007-0337 (May 28, 2007).
In the circumstances, the Panel finds, pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to confuse and thereby divert Internet users to his website for commercial gain.
In the circumstances, the Panel need not consider whether Policy paragraphs 4(b)(i), (ii) or (iii) are applicable, or whether there are other grounds for finding that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Complainant has established each of the three requirements set forth in Policy paragraph 4(a) for the disputed domain name – the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks NUTRISYSTEM and NUTRISYSTEM.COM, the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel therefore orders that the disputed domain name <nutrisystem56.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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