Source: http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1290319.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:41:39+00:00

Document:
Complainant is Kate Hudson (â€œComplainantâ€�), represented by Charles J. Harder, of Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, California, USA.Â Respondent is Fei Zhu (â€œRespondentâ€�), China.
The domain name at issue is <katehudson.com>, registered with Rebel.com.
Sally M. Abel, Esq., The Honorable Ralph Yachnin (Ret.) and Robert T. Pfeuffer (Ret.), Chair as Panelists.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 20, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 21, 2009.
On October 21, 2009, Rebel.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <katehudson.com> domain name is registered with Rebel.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.Â Rebel.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Rebel.com 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 October 23, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 12, 2009 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@katehudson.com by e-mail.
On November 20, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sally M. Abel , Esq., The Honorable Ralph Yachnin, (Ret.) and Robert T. Pfeuffer, (Ret.) Chair, as Panelists.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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."Â Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Identical or Confusingly Similar: Policy Â¶ 4(a)(i).
2. That she has used the KATE HUDSON mark to conduct business in public through her acting career.
3. That in support of her assertion under paragraph 2, Complainant provides a list of motion pictures in which in which she starred prior to Respondentâ€™s registration of the disputed domain name.
4. That she has been known by this name for the entire thirty years of her life, and has used it commercially as a mark since 1999.
5. That she had established common law rights in the KATE HUDSON mark through continuous and extensive commercial use predating Respondentâ€™s 2006 registration of the disputed domain name under Policy Â¶ 4(a)(i).
6. That the disputed domain name is identical to Complainantâ€™s KATE HUDSON mark.
Rights and Legitimate Interests: Policy Â¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that the burden of proof has shifted to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests.
9.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Complainant claims that Respondent has failed to offer any evidence suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <katehudson.com> domain name.
10.Â Â Â Â Â Â That the record does not contain any evidence suggesting that Complainant is commonly known by the domain name.
11.Â Â Â Â Â Â Respondent has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use the KATE HUDSON mark.
12.Â Â Â Â Â Â Respondent has failed to file any response to any of Complainantâ€™s allegations.
13.Â Â Â Â Â Â That Respondentâ€™s <katehudson.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring hyperlinks unrelated to Complainant.
14.Â Â Â Â Â Â That some of the aforementioned hyperlinks resolve to websites featuring adult-oriented content.
15.Â Â Â Â Â Â That Respondent likely receives click-through fees from the hyperlinks featured on Respondentâ€™s resolving website.
16.Â Â Â Â Â Â That Respondent receives click-through fees from the above mentioned hyperlinks.
17.Â Â Â Â Â Â That the disputed domain name features hyperlinks to unrelated third-parties and hyperlinks to websites featuring adult-oriented content.
18.Â Â Â Â Â Â That Internet users searching for information about Complainant, or her motion pictures, may become confused as to Complainantâ€™s affiliation with the resolving website and featured hyperlink.
19.Â Â Â Â Â Â That Complainantâ€™s KATE HUDSON mark may become tarnished because of Respondentâ€™s used of hyperlinks to adult-oriented websites.
20.Â Â Â Â Â Â That Respondentâ€™s used of the <katehudson.com> domain name features hyperlinks to websites containing adult-oriented content and that as such, they are in and of themselves evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy Â¶ 4(a)(iii).
21.Â Â Â Â Â Â The Respondent has filed no answer and has made no contention with respect to Complainantâ€™s assertions in regards to Policy Â¶ 4(a)(i), Â¶ 4(a)(ii) and Â¶ 4(a)(iii).
B.Â Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that Complainantâ€™s contentions are well grounded and that she has established (1) that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainantâ€™s mark; (2) that Respondent has failed to establish any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and (3) that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
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.Â The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.Â See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondentâ€™s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (â€œIn the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.â€�).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy Â¶ 4(a)(ii).Â Therefore, the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests, which it has wholly failed to do.Â See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entmâ€™t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP Â¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (â€œComplainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.Â If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.â€�).
The Panel finds that the use of the <katehudson.com> domain name for a parked site, featuring both unrelated third-party hyperlinks and adult-oriented hyperlinks constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy Â¶ 4(b)(iv).Â See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (â€œRespondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees.Â Â Such use for Respondentâ€™s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Â¶ 4(b)(iv).â€�); see also Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that absent contrary evidence, linking the domain names in question to graphic, adult-oriented websites is evidence of bad faith); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Party Night Inc., FA 144647 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondentâ€™s tarnishing use of the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to adult-oriented websites was evidence that the domain names were being used in bad faith).
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <katehudson.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

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