Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0760.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 11:01:26+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Beverly Hills, California, United States of America, represented by Keats McFarland & Wilson, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is KeithMalley.com, Brooklyn, New York, United States of America.
The disputed domain name <thesimpsonsmovie.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 24, 2007. On May 24, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Network Solutions, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On May 24, 2007, Network Solutions, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response indicating that KeithMalley.com was listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 8, 2007, naming KeithMalley.com1 as the Respondent. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 8, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 28, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 2, 2007.
The Center appointed William R. Towns as the sole panelist in this matter on July 16, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The animated television series “The Simpsons” debuted in 1989, and has become one of the longest running network series in television history. The series has garnered multiple awards and award nominations, including several Emmy Awards. The long awaited release of “The Simpsons Movie”, based on the well–known and award winning television series, is scheduled for late July 2007.
The Complainant is the owner of multiple federal trademark registrations in the United States of America for THE SIMPSONS respecting a broad array of goods and services. The earliest of these registrations was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in May 1993. The Complainant also has registered THE SIMPSONS as a trademark in more than eighty (80) other countries worldwide, and the Complainant owns the domain name <simpsonsmovie.com>.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <thesimpsonsmovie.com> and is currently using the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to the Keith and the Girl website, a comedy podcast hosted by the Respondent (comedian Keith Malley).2 The Respondent sells merchandize through this site, including CDs and DVDs featuring his stand up comedy, as well as “Keith and the Girl” apparel and other items.
The Respondent initially used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that featured off-color and in some cases sexually explicit depictions involving several characters from “The Simpsons” television series. This website also contained a link to the Keith and the Girl site. When contacted by the Complainant’s counsel prior to the commencement of this administrative proceeding, the Respondent’s purported legal representative indicated that the Respondent would be willing to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant for $50,000 (USD).
The Complainant is the owner of at least 28 federal trademark registrations in the United States of America for THE SIMPSONS, and holds registrations for the mark in more than eighty (80) other countries around the world. The Complainant also claims common law rights in the mark THE SIMPSONS through continuous and exclusive use sufficient to establish secondary meaning. According to the Complainant, “The Simpsons” television series has generated billions of dollars in licensing revenue worldwide since the first episode aired in 1989. Further, the Complainant asserts that it has engaged in a multi-million dollar marketing campaign to promote “The Simpsons Movie”, and that the announcement of the movie alone has generated enormous publicity in print and television media and on the Internet. Accordingly, based on multiple registrations for the mark THE SIMPSONS, the many years of commercial exploitation of the mark, and the publicity surrounding the television series, licensed products, and the upcoming movie, the Complainant asserts it has developed tremendous goodwill in the mark.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has not been authorized to use the mark THE SIMPSONS and has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in a bad faith attempt to profit from the goodwill in the Complainant’s mark by diverting Internet users to the Respondent’s Keith and the Girl website.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <thesimpsonsmovie.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark THE SIMPSONS, which the Complainant unquestionably has established rights in through registration and use. At a minimum, the Complainant’s mark is entitled to a presumption of validity by virtue of their registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0047.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark THE SIMPSONS in its entirety. The mere addition of a generic or descriptive word such as “movie” does not diminish the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s mark THE SIMPSONS. See, e.g., Pfizer Inc. v. Asia Ventures, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0256. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
As noted above, once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain. It is uncontroverted that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s mark THE SIMPSONS, or to register domain names corresponding to that mark. Further, there is no indication that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Instead the record reflects the Respondent’s registration of a domain name incorporating in its entirety the Complainant’s mark, and its use to redirect the public to a website where the Respondent promotes his own products and merchandise.
The Respondent has not submitted a formal response to the Complaint, and in the absence of any such submission this Panel may accept all reasonable inferences and allegations included in the Complaint as true. See Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009.3 In any event, the Panel has carefully reviewed the record in this case, and finds nothing therein that would bring the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name within any of the safe harbors of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Nothing in the record indicates that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent has made any noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. The Respondent’s intentional use of a domain name corresponding to a third party’s mark to attract Internet traffic to his website for purposes of self-promotion does not constitute the use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel deems that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel concludes from the circumstances in this case that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s mark THE SIMPSONS when he registered the confusingly similar disputed domain name. The Panel further finds from the circumstances of this case that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit the Complainant’s mark, by attracting Internet users looking for products or services associated with the mark THE SIMPSONS to the Respondent’s website, where the Respondent promotes and offers for sale his own products and merchandise. This constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See The Saul Zaentz Company v. Siarhei Chyzhevich, WIPO Case No. D2006-0370.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <thesimpsonsmovie.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
1 The Complaint named Keith Malley as the Respondent. For reasons discussed below, the Panel concludes that “KeithMalley.com” is a fictitious name for Keith Malley. Accordingly, the term “Respondent” as used herein refers to KeithMalley.com and Keith Malley without differentiation.
2 Both the domain name <keithandthegirl.com> and the disputed domain name are registered to KeithMalley.com, according to the registrars’ Whois databases. The domain name <keithmalley.com> also is registered to KeithMalley.com. The Panel therefore concludes that KeithMalley.com is a fictitious name for Keith Malley. Hence, as noted above, the term “Respondent” as used herein refers to KeithMalley.com and Keith Malley interchangeably.
3 Some panels have held that a respondent’s lack of response can be construed as an admission that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624. Other panel decisions note that adverse inferences may be drawn from a respondent’s failure to reply. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0403.

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