Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0613.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:32:48+00:00

Document:
Complainant is Forte Communications, Inc. (“Complainant” or “Forte”), a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Arizona, with a principal place of business located in Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Respondent is Service for Life (“Respondent” or “Service”) located in Ballwin, Missouri, United States of America.
The domain name at issue is <serviceforlife.com> (the “Domain Name”). The registrar is Network Solutions, Inc. (the “Registrar”) located in Herndon, Virginia, United States of America.
On August�4,�2004, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) received a copy of the Complaint of Complainant via email. On August�5,�2004, the Center sent an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Complaint to Complainant. On August�9,�2004, the Center received hardcopy of the Complaint. The Complainant paid the required fee.
On August�6,�2004 after the Center sent a Request for Verification to the Registrar requesting verification of registration data, the Registrar confirmed, inter alia, that it is the registrar of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name is registered in the Respondent's name.
The Center verified that the Complaint with Amendment satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
On August�10,�2004, the Center sent a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding to the Respondent together with copies of the Complaint with Amendment, with a copy to the Complainant. This notification was sent by the methods required under paragraph 2(a) of the Rules.
On September�1,�2004, the Center advised Respondent that it was in default for failing to file its Response. No Response has been received.
On September�8,�2004 after the Center received a completed and signed Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence from Richard W. Page (the “Sole Panelist”), the Center notified the parties of the appointment of a single-arbitrator panel consisting of the Sole Panelist.
Complainant is a recognized national leader in providing marketing materials for use by real estate professionals. Complainant provides its goods and services under a variety of trademarks, including the trademark SERVICE FOR LIFE! (the “Mark”). Complainant offers its goods and services to companies and individuals by a variety of means, including, without limitation, through websites on the Internet.
In early 2004, Complainant learned that the Domain Name was registered to Respondent. Upon visiting the website located at <serviceforlife.com>, on or about March�29,�2004, Complainant found that the Domain Name did not resolve to an active website. On March�29,�2004, Complainant, through Matt Bieber, its web master, attempted to contact Respondent in an effort to discuss Respondent’s plans with respect to the Domain Name. The email was subsequently returned to Complainant’s web master as undeliverable.
Again on June�2,�2004, Complainant, through its web master, attempted to contact Respondent by email. Once again, the message was returned as undeliverable. Upon Complainant’s inability to reach Respondent to settle this matter through other means, Complainant proceeded with this Complaint.
i. Complainant contends that it is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,631,717 for the Mark SERVICE FOR LIFE! covering “newsletters in the field of real estate and general interest,” with continuous use since at least as early as 1999, that its trademark registration is valid and subsisting, and that it serves as prima facie evidence of its ownership and the validity of the Mark. Complainant further contends that it is also the owner of approximately 19 domain names related to Complainant’s business, including <3-steps.com> and <CraigForte.com> and that its Mark and domain names have been and are recognized by the public and the industry as originating from a single source, namely Complainant. Complainant alleges that its Mark and domain names serve to distinguish its goods and services from those of others. Complainant further contends that through its significant advertising efforts, monetary expenditures, skills and experience, has acquired and enjoys substantial goodwill and a valuable reputation through Complainant’s distinctive Mark and domain names. The maintenance of high standards of quality and excellence for Complainant’s goods and services has contributed to this valuable goodwill and reputation. Complainant has expended and continues to expend a significant amount of time and money to advertise and promote its goods and services through its distinctive Mark and domain names.
ii. Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, because it wholly incorporates the Mark with the addition of generic or nondistinctive terms. Aside from the generic top level domain “.com” at the end of the Domain Name and the exclamation point at the end of the Complainant’s Mark, the domain name <serviceforlife.com> is identical to Complainant’s SERVICE FOR LIFE! Mark.
iii. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(ii), and that Respondent cannot demonstrate any of the three circumstances that constitute rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent cannot demonstrate rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name under Paragraph 4(c)(i) because it has not made use, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services.
Complainant alleges that Respondent cannot demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Paragraph 4(c)(ii) because it is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant, and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Mark in a domain name or in any other manner.
iv. Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith in violation of Paragraph 4(a)(iii). Complainant alleges that the following elements show Respondent’s bad faith (i) inaction by Respondent in the use the Domain Name to post any content on the Internet or for any other legitimate purpose; (ii) false information provided by Respondent with the registration of the Domain Name; and (iii) creation of the likelihood of confusion by Respondent.
i. Respondent does not dispute that the Complainant has enforceable rights in the Mark.
ii. Respondent does not dispute that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark.
iii. Respondent does not dispute that it lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
iv. Respondent does not dispute that it registered or used the Domain Name in bad faith.
Because both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the United States and United States courts have recent experience with similar disputes, to the extent that it would assist the Panel in determining whether the Complainant has met its burden as established by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts of the United States. Tribeca Film Center, Inc. v. Brusasco-Mackenzie, Case No. D2000-1772 (WIPO April�10,�2001).
Complainant contends that it is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,631,717 for the Mark SERVICE FOR LIFE! covering “newsletters in the field of real estate and general interest,” with continuous use since at least as early as 1999, that its trademark registration is valid and subsisting, and that it serves as prima facie evidence of its ownership and the validity of the Mark. Respondent has failed to dispute these contentions. Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds that Complainant, for purposes of this proceeding, has enforceable rights in the Mark.
Complainant further contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). The fact that the Domain Name does not include an exclamation point at the end does not render the Domain Name sufficiently distinguishable so that the Domain Name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. See Chernow Communications, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May�18,�2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark”); see also Nat’l Cable Satellite Corp. v. Black Sun Surf Co., FA 94738 (Nat. Arb. Forum June�19,�2000) (holding that the domain name <cspan.net>, which omitted the hyphen from the C-SPAN trademark, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark). It has long been held that minor changes between the mark in question and a disputed domain name are not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark for the purposes of the confusingly similar analysis pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i). See, e.g., The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Bigxa Co. Ltd, FA0008000095487 (NAF October�26,�2000) (finding that “[t]he only difference between the domain name and Complainant’s various trademarks is the addition of the words “the” and “.com” in Respondent’s domain name . . . . [s]uch differences are minor and do nothing to cause and real distinction between the names or prevent confusion”); Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO December�9,�2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case”); see also The London Marathon Limited v. Websitebrokers Limited, D2001-0157 (WIPO April�5,�2001) (finding the domain name TheLondonMarathon.com confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “London Marathon” trademark).
Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complaint that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark.
The Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SERVICE FOR LIFE Mark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Once a Complainant establishes a prima facie showing that none of the three circumstances establishing legitimate interests or rights apply, the burden of production on this factor shifts to the Respondent to rebut the showing. The burden of proof, however, remains with Complainant to prove each of the three elements of Paragraph 4(a). See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications, Inc., Case No. D2000-0270 (WIPO June�6,�2000).
Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant, and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Mark in a domain name or in any other manner.
Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent’s Domain Name does not resolve to a website or other substantive online presence. Respondent acquired the Domain Name on November�10,�1998, nearly 6 years before the date of this Complaint and Respondent has not taken any steps to develop a website or use the Domain Name in a legitimate manner. Respondent’s failure to use, or prepare to use, the Domain Name in a bona fide offering of goods and services is sufficient to show that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name. See TABCORP Holdings v. Steven Hertzberg, D2000-0566 (WIPO September�20,�2000) (finding that Respondent has no legitimate interest in domain name where it has not shown use of, or preparations to use, the domain name in a bona fide offering of goods or services).
Complainant has demonstrated that after making a substantial inquiry into the Respondent’s identity, it is not possible to discern the true identity of Respondent based on the information provided by the Respondent to the Registrar. Respondent has not made a legitimate use of the Domain Name nor has Respondent been commonly known by or connected to the names “Service For Life.” See The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Bigxa Co. Ltd, FA0008000095487 (NAF October�6,�2000) (finding Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in a domain name where Respondent was not known by or connected with the name).
Respondent’s failure to use the Domain Name for any apparent purpose also negates the possibility that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without the intent to (a) derive commercial gain, (b) misleadingly divert consumers, or (c) tarnish the trademark at issue.
Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence to meet the elements for any of the nonexclusive methods provided for in the Policy paragraph 4(c).
The Sole Panelist finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent has made no use of the Domain Name. Therefore, none of the elements of the Policy paragraph 4(b) applies. The four criteria set forth in the Policy paragraph 4(b) are nonexclusive. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. In addition to these criteria, other factors alone or in combination can support a finding of bad faith.
One such factor is that Respondent has made no use of the Domain Name. There is no evidence that a website or other online presence is being developed from the Domain Name. See Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO February�18,�2000) (finding bad faith where “there is no evidence that a Web site or other online presence is in the process of being established which will use the domain name”); see also Chernow Communications v. Kimball, WIPO Case No. D2000-0119 (finding that respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name supports a determination of “bad faith” registration and use); Mondich and American Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Brown, WIPO Case No. D2000-0004. There is no evidence of advertising, promotion or other display on or related to the Domain Name. See Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO February�18,�2000) (finding bad faith where “there is no evidence of advertising, promotion or display to the public of the domain name”). In short, the Respondent is merely passively holding the Domain Name which alone is sufficient to constitute bad faith. See Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO February�18,�2000) (finding that mere passive holding of a website is sufficient to constitute acting in bad faith).
4. ACCURATE INFORMATION. You agree to: (1) provide certain true, current, complete and accurate information about you as required by the application process; and (2) maintain and update according to our modification procedures the information you provided to us when purchasing our services as needed to keep it current, complete and accurate.
Respondent has failed to provide a proper business name, working email address, phone number, voice or fax phone number for the administrative contact as required under the Respondent’s Service Agreement. Respondent has purposefully used false information in registering the Domain Name to conceal Respondent’s identity and to make it difficult to locate Respondent for purposes of lawfully pursuing the Domain Name. Respondent has taken deliberate steps to conceal its true identity; see Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (finding bad faith where the “Respondent has taken deliberate steps to ensure that its true identity cannot be determined and communication with it cannot be made.”); Yahoo!, Inc. v. Eitan Zviely, D2000-0273 (finding that “[Respondent’s] registration under phony names” constitutes bad faith registration and use); Salomon Smith Barney Inc. v. Salomon Internet Services, D2000-0668 (finding bad faith use and registration where Respondent “has taken steps to conceal its true identity”).
A third factor is the likelihood of confusion among Internet users or Netizens. Respondent’s activities create a likelihood of confusion with respect to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the <serviceforlife.com> website. The confusion is caused by the website’s location at <serviceforlife.com>, a domain name identical to Complainant’s trademark. Respondent does not display a disclaimer or other information informing consumers that it is not affiliated with Complainant. Netizens often use a trademark or service mark to guess at a domain name. Therefore, Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is disruptive of Complainant’s business because potential customers of Complainant are having trouble locating it and may become frustrated or draw adverse inferences concerning the status of Complainant’s business.
The evidence establishes: (i) inaction by Respondent in the use the Domain Name to post any content on the Internet or for any other legitimate purpose; (ii) false information provided by Respondent with the registration of the Domain Name; and (iii) creation of the likelihood of confusion by Respondent.
The Sole Panelist concludes (a) that the Domain Name <serviceforlife.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered Mark SERVICE FOR LIFE!, (b) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and (c) that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Therefore, pursuant to paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Sole Panelist orders that the Domain Name be transferred to Complainant.

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