Source: https://dnattorney.com/dn-resources/massachusetts-medical-society-v-michael-karle/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:54:49+00:00

Document:
Domain Name - Domain Name Registration - Bad Faith - No Legitimate Interests - Commercial Gain - Offer of Sale - Confusingly Similar - Addition of the in domain name inconsequential - Effect of default for non-response - Redirects to competitors site.
Complainant is the Massachusetts Medical Society, a not-for-profit corporation. Complainant was established as a professional association of physicians by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1781. Complainant holds United States registered trademarks in the design and style of The New England Journal of Medicine logo. Complainant has also provided evidence of its registration of trademarks or pending applications for registered trademarks in the mark THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE in several countries. Complainant uses its U.S. trademarks in the logo for its medical publication, and has invested extensive resources to publicize its marks. Respondent registered newenglandjournalofmedicine.com.
The domain name registered by Respondent is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainants trademark, The New England Journal of Medicine. The article "the" is inconsequential and does not prevent a finding that the names are identical or confusingly similar.
Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant and is not otherwise authorized to use Complainants mark. By failing to submit a Response to the Complaint, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four examples of bad faith, which are not exclusive, but which "shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith." Complainant has presented evidence sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name by Respondent on two grounds. First, Respondents offer to sell Complainant the Domain Name, the listing of the Domain Name "for sale" on the Registrars WHOIS database display, and Respondents failure to submit evidence documenting out-of-pocket costs in connection with the Domain Name permit an inference that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name with the primary purpose of selling it to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of Respondents out-of-pocket costs.
Second, Complainant has submitted evidence sufficient to show that Respondent, by using a domain name virtually identical to Complainants trademark, for a website advertising the sale of medical and health care related publications, intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants mark. The evidence therefore also shows bad faith use of the Domain Name under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. V. Steven S. Lalwani and Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. V. Long Distance Telephone Company, ICANN Cases Nos. D2000-0014 and 2000-0015.
World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001.
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) received the Complainants Complaint by email on April 12, 2000 and in hardcopy on April 14, 2000. On April 17, 2000, the Center sent the Complainant an Acknowledgment of Receipt of the Complaint.
On April 17, 2000, the Center sent via email to the Registrar, IDRC, a Request for Registrar Verification. On April 19, 2000, IDRC transmitted via email to the Center a Registrar Verification Response confirming that the Domain Name is registered with IDRC and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the Domain Name as well as the administrative, billing and technical contact IDRCs Response set forth contact information for the Respondent, including email and mailing addresses.
In view of the Complainants designation of a single panelist (but without prejudice to any election to be made by the Respondent), the Center invited Dana Haviland to serve as the panelist. On May 29, 2000, after having received Ms. Havilands Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, the Center transmitted to the parties via email a Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date, in which Dana Haviland was formally appointed as the sole panelist. The Projected Decision Date was June 11, 2000. The Panelist finds that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted and appointed in accordance with the Uniform Rules and the WIPO Supplemental Rules. The date for submission of the draft Decision to the Center was subsequently extended until June 15, 2000.
The Complainant demanded that the Respondent ceases and desists from use of the Domain Name. The Respondent then offered to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant for $10,000. Complaint, page 8, para. 25 and Annex L. The IDRC Whoops database record for the Domain Name indicates "Domain for Sale" next to the name of the registrant, Respondent Michael Karle. Complaint, Annex A.
The domain name <newenglandjournalofmedicine.com.> registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants trademark, The New England Journal of Medicine. The article "the" is inconsequential and does not prevent a finding that the names are identical or confusingly similar. See Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. V. Steven S. Lalwani and Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. V. Long Distance Telephone Company, ICANN Cases Nos. D2000-0014 and 2000-0015 (domain names that differed only by the incorporation of the definite article "the" at the beginning of the domain name found to be exactly the same as the complainants marks).
Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and is not otherwise authorized to use the Complainants mark. Complaint, page 9. By failing to submit a Response to the Complaint, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your website or location."
The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name by Respondent on two grounds. First, the Respondents offer to sell the Complainant the Domain Name for $10,000, the listing of the Domain Name "for sale" on the Registrars WHOIS database display, and Respondents failure to submit evidence documenting out-of-pocket costs in any amount in connection with the Domain Name permit an inference that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name with the primary purpose of selling it to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of Respondents out-of-pocket costs. This evidence shows bad faith registration and use of the Domain Dame under Paragraph 4(b) (i) of the Policy. See World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001 (offer to sell domain name for valuable consideration in excess of any out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name constitutes bad faith use of the name); Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corporation, ICANN Case No. D2000-0023 (listing of domain name for sale in WHOIS record is evidence of bad faith).
Second, the Complainant has submitted evidence sufficient to show that the Respondent, by using a domain name virtually identical to the Complainants well known medical journal trademark, for a website advertising the sale of medical and health care related publications, intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his web site or the products offered. The evidence therefore also shows bad faith use of the Domain Name under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy 1.

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