Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1482.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:43:58+00:00

Document:
Complainant is Orbital Sciences Corporation of Dulles, Virginia, United States of America, represented by Dow Lohnes, PLLC, United States of America.
Respondent is Finseth International, Hermosa Beach, California, United States of America, represented by Lewis & Hand, LLP, United States of America.
The disputed domain name <orbitalsciences.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 9, 2007. On October 12, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Tucows a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On October 12, 2007, Tucows transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is Finseth International and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on October 23, 2007, naming the Respondent as Finseth International of Hermosa Beach, California. 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 October 30, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response November 19, 2007. The Response was filed with the Center on November 17, 2007.
The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine, David E. Sorkin and David H. Bernstein as panelists in this matter on December 13, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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.
Complainant Orbital Sciences Corporation is a developer and manufacturer of smaller, affordable space and rocket systems and provides a complete set of products from satellites to launch vehicles and target rockets. Complainant is also involved in several related businesses, including space engineering services and advanced transportation management systems. Complainant promotes its products and services locally through conventional advertising, and also nationally and internationally via its Internet website at “www.orbital.com”.
Complainant has used Orbital Sciences Corporation as its primary business name since 1982. Complainant has been the Registrant of the domain name <orbital.com> since March 1992.
Complainant owns United States Registration No. 2,264,116 for the mark ORBITAL and Design, registered July 27, 1999. The application was filed on August 29, 1997 and claims first use as of August 1, 1997.
Respondent registered the Domain Name on November 6, 1998.
At the time the Domain Name was registered, Respondent’s principal, Jim Finseth, was a Project Manager of Satellite Propulsion at Boeing Satellite Systems. Prior to that, Mr. Finseth had worked as a propulsion engineer for companies such as Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space, Sverdrup Technology, and McDonnell Douglas, dating back to 1985.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered ORBITAL mark because the only differences between the Domain Name and the ORBITAL mark are the addition of the “.com” generic top-level domain and the term “sciences” to the Complainant’s mark.
Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to display advertisements and direct visitors to third party commercial websites, for which activity Respondent presumably receives compensation, does not establish a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
Respondent’s website contains text referring to an adult website and graphics that are sexual in nature. The intent to divert visitors to a website containing materials that are sexual or pornographic in nature precludes a finding of good faith under the Policy.
The Domain Name is not confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant had rights at the time of registration.
Due to the generic nature of the Domain Name for topics relating to scientific experiments in space engineering, Respondent believed that it was available for such use.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant is required to prove the presence of each of the following three elements to obtain the relief it has requested: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant owns a federal registration for the ORBITAL and Design mark. There is no disclaimer in the registration of the word “orbital”, which means that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not consider the word “orbital” to be descriptive for Complainant’s services. The Domain Name incorporates the textual component of the registered mark in its entirety, and merely adds the dictionary term “sciences” and a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), here “.com”.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name <orbitalsciences.com> is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The dominant feature of the domain name is Complainant’s registered ORBITAL mark. The mere addition of the non-distinctive, descriptive or generic term “sciences” does not change the overall impression of the mark. See, American Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro a/k/a American Express Indonesia, NAF Case No. FA129120 (holding that respondent’s <americanexpressrewards.com> domain name is confusingly similar to complainant’s AMERICAN EXPRESS mark because it merely adds the generic term “rewards” to the end of complainant’s mark; the addition of “rewards” does not add any distinctive features because it could easily be associated with complainant’s business, and complainant’s AMERICAN EXPRESS mark is still the dominant feature of the disputed domain name). Similarly, the gTLD should be disregarded when considering whether the Domain Name is confusing similarity to Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., Forward Association, Inc., v. Enterprises Unlimited, NAF Case No. FA95491 (“[N]either the beginning of the URL (http://www.), nor the TLD (.com) have any source indicating significance. Those designations are merely devices that every Internet site provider must use as part of its address.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that <orbitalsciences.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ORBITAL mark.1 See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662.
In light of this holding, the Panel need not consider whether Complainant also has common law rights in the trademarks ORBITAL SCIENCES and ORBITAL SCIENCES CORPORATION.
A complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of rebutting this showing. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, Morgan Freeman v. Mighty LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0263; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.
Complainant has established that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent responds that it has a legitimate interest in the Domain Name because Mr. Finseth has worked in the “orbital sciences” field for almost twenty years and that, through his “Finseth International” entity, he registered the Domain Name in order to create a “scientific, informational Web site”. Respondent further argues that it has a presumptively legitimate interest in the Domain Name because it is comprised of generic words.
Despite Respondent’s assertions, it has not created a website with any relationship whatsoever to the orbital sciences field (despite nearly a decade of holding the Domain Name), nor has it shown any demonstrable preparations to do so. Accordingly, Respondent cannot rely on paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy which deems a use legitimate if a respondent is using, or has made “demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name . . . in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.” World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Ringside Collectibles, WIPO Case No. D2000-1306.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant satisfied its prima facie showing and Respondent, to whom the burden of production has shifted, has not rebutted that with evidence of a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove registration and use in bad faith. Although Respondent’s actions are not necessarily indicative of good faith use, Complainant has not succeeded in proving that Respondent’s registration and use was affirmatively in bad faith.
Respondent was likely aware of Complainant’s rights at the time it registered the Domain Name. Respondent’s principal was in the aerospace industry for roughly a decade when Respondent registered the Domain Name, making it difficult to believe he had not at that time heard of Complainant. Mere knowledge, however, is not determinative of bad faith. Rather, the issue is whether Respondent had bad faith intentions when it registered the Domain Name. If, for example, it registered the Domain Name with the hope of selling it to Complainant at a profit, that would be indicative of bad faith; if, instead, Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose of posting non-commercial commentary relevant to the orbital sciences field, that would not be indicative of bad faith.
Because the bad faith factor turns on Respondent’s subjective intentions, it is difficult for the Panel to determine what Respondent truly intended at the time of registration. The Panel can, however, rely on circumstantial evidence to try to discern Respondent’s intentions, and can draw appropriate inferences based on all of the evidence in the record, including the ways in which Respondent has used the Domain Name since registration.
In considering whether Complainant has shown that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith, the Panel has thus considered Respondent’s use of the Domain Name during the nine years since it registered the Domain Name. As Respondent characterizes it, it has used the Domain Name to resolve to a website that serves as a kind of personal “My Space” type webpage, at which Respondent posts his musings and jokes. Some of those musings and jokes may be in bad taste, but Respondent’s use of the website for these postings, especially given the non-commercial nature of the website, does not appear to constitute the kind of bad faith, abusive cybersquatting contemplated by the Policy. Further, the Panel finds that none of the classic indications of bad faith use are present in this case – Respondent has not offered to sell the Domain Name; Respondent has not attempted to conceal its identity nor prevent itself from being located; and Respondent has not intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the “www.orbitalsciences.com” website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s ORBITAL Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website. Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). The only advertisements on the website are for third parties associated with the operation of his website, not for companies selling products or services in competition with Complainant. The fact that the Domain Name has been used for a non-commercial website throughout this period tends to support Respondent’s contention that Complainant has failed to prove bad faith.
That is not to say that evidence of non-commercial use will always defeat a claim of bad faith. If a disputed domain name resolves to a website with pornographic or other offensive content, that may well be indicative of bad faith unless there is a persuasive explanation for why that content is relevant to the particular domain name. Compare, Patricia Ford and Online Creations Inc. v. Damir Kruzicevic, WIPO Case No. D2001-0059 (bad faith to use famous model’s name in domain name for website containing pornographic content not related to complainant) with Etam, plc v. Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No. D2000-1654 (bad faith not shown where website contained pornographic content, domain name was a common woman’s name, and the corresponding trademark was not particularly well known). That is not, however, the case here. Despite Complainant’s assertion to the contrary, there is no evidence in the record that the site has been used for pornographic content. The dancing women on the site are clothed and the statement that the website is “an adult site” seems to reflect only Respondent’s sense of humor (such as it is) since the site goes on to explain that “over 2 years old is an adult.” Similarly, although Respondent’s musings may be a bit strange, they do not rise to the level of offensive content that could tarnish Complainant’s trademark or reputation.
The Panel is also not convinced that Respondent has engaged in bad faith passive use. Complainant’s ORBITAL SCIENCES mark is not so well-known a mark that the holding of the registration for a decade (with or without use) should constitute Telstra-like bad faith passive use. See, Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (February 18, 2000) (“[I]naction ([e.g.,] passive holding) in relation to a domain name registration can, in certain circumstances, constitute a domain name being used in bad faith.”).
For these reasons, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to sustain its burden of proving that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
1 Contrary to Respondent’s assertion, the fact that the domain name was registered prior to Complainant’s trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, but is only relevant to an assessment of bad faith. See, AB Svenska Spel v. Andrey Zacharov, WIPO Case No. D2003-0527 (October 2, 2003).
2 Although the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions is not binding precedent, it embodies a consensus of positions set forth in the opinions of several WIPO UDRP panelists during the first five years of the administration of the UDRP. See, Fresh Intellectual Properties, Inc. v. 800Network.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0061. As such, it is prudent for panelists to follow such a consensus in order to promote consistency among UDRP decisions. See, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Paul McCauley, WIPO Case No. D2004-0014.

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