WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Urfin Juice
Case No. D2004-0028
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, Arkansas, United States of America, represented by Venable, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Urfin Juice, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with InnerWise, Inc. d/b/a ItsYourD.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on January 14, 2004. On January 15, 2004, the Center transmitted by email to InnerWise, Inc. d/b/a ItsYourD a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On January 15, 2004, InnerWise, Inc. d/b/a ItsYourD transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that 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 January 29, 2004. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 18, 2004. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent�s default on February 20, 2004.
The Center appointed Guillermo Carey as the sole panelist in this matter on March 5, 2004. 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.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the owner of the distinctive and famous service mark WAL-MART. It is also the world�s largest retailer.
The Complainant has made continuous and extensive use of the WAL-MART service mark since 1962. It currently owns registrations of this mark in 46 countries.
The Complainant currently operates 1,568 WAL-MART stores and 1,258 WAL-MART Supercenters, among others, throughout the United States. A total of 942 WAL-MART stores and 238 WAL-MART Supercenters are owned by the Complainant outside the United States.
The Complainant operates 216 WAL-MART stores in Canada, the country of residence of the Respondent. It has been known in Canada since 1964, and registered its service mark in 1994.
The Complainant makes extensive use of its service mark in connection with its many retail outlets, in advertising its merchandise and services throughout the world.
The Complainant offers WAL-MART credit cards and has trademark rights in the marks WAL-MART and WAL-MART CREDIT CARD for credit cards and related services, operating a website at "," which provides information and services to WAL-MART customers.
The Complainant has not authorized the use of the disputed domain name to the Respondent.
The Respondent used the domain name to point to a pornographic website and other unsavory material not authorized by WAL-MART. After the Complainant sent a demand letter on November 13, 2003, the domain name has resolved to a commercial site offering Internet services and domain name registration services and Internet Service Provider (ISP) services. The Complainant also provides ISP services.
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant�s WAL-MART and WAL-MART CREDIT CARD service marks and its own website "."
2. The Complainant has rights in these service marks that predate the registration by the Respondent of the disputed domain name.
3. The continuous, widespread, and extensive use of the service marks WAL-MART and WAL-MART CREDIT CARD in Complainant�s worldwide operations, and the extensive advertising of the WAL-MART mark, including via internet, have made the service marks famous, which in turn means that consumers are highly likely to associate a domain name incorporating the term WAL-MART, or a close approximation of it, with the Complainant.
4. The disputed domain name is being used in bad faith with intent for commercial gain. It is misleading and, prior to the demand stop and desist letter, diverted Complainant�s customers to a website with links to inappropriate sites offering pornography and other unsavory advertisements, which in turn tarnish the Complainant�s well-established image. The domain name is now used to compete with Complainant�s ISP services.
5. The Respondent is using the Complainant�s service mark without its authorization.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not file a reply.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy, paragraph 4(a), provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
1. That the Respondent�s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3. The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy identifies circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all the evidence presented, shall demonstrate the Respondent�s rights or legitimate interests for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(ii).
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Policy states that those circumstances are not exhaustive of the circumstances indicating registration and use in bad faith.
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence indicating its ownership of the distinctive and famous service mark WAL-MART. The Complainant is also the owner of the website "."
Given that the disputed domain name wholly integrates the Complainant�s registered service mark, the similarity, to the point of absolute confusion, between the Respondent�s domain name and the Complainant�s intellectual property is obvious.
The Panel believes that persons coming across the Respondent�s website may very well conclude that it is owned by or associated with the Complainant as the owner of the famous worldwide WAL-MART mark.
Furthermore, the Complainant offers to its customers a WAL-MART credit card, uses the name WAL-MART CREDIT CARD as a service mark and owns a virtually similar website of its own, "."
The Complainant�s extensive and continuous use of the mark since 1962, and its various registrations for it worldwide, clearly establish the Complainant�s rights to the service mark.
Consequently, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the domain name at issue is identical and confusingly similar with the Complainant�s registered trademarks and domain names. Consequently, the Complainant succeeds in meeting the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
2. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In the absence of a response, there is no evidence indicating the Respondent�s rights or legitimate interests over any mark consisting of the term "Wal-Mart" in any country. The Complainant, therefore, also satisfies the second requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
3. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name points to the Respondent�s website, which links to a number of inappropriate sites offering pornography and other unsavory, unauthorized advertisements.
The fame of the WAL-MART mark and the existing worldwide registrations for it, including in Canada, strongly indicate that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
The Respondent�s registration and use of a domain name incorporating the Complainant�s famous mark to link to other unrelated sites also indicate the deliberate attempt to capture persons to believe those sites are in some way associated with the Complainant. The inappropriate nature of Respondent�s website links indicates the likely tarnish to Complainant�s reputation and marks.
Unfortunately, the Respondent failed to provide a response stating his legitimate purposes and thus interests for registering and using the domain name in dispute. Thus, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith, i.e., to capture clients to its web page using the reputation and good will achieved by WAL-MART worldwide.
7. Decision
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, , be canceled.
Guillermo Carey
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 18, 2004
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy