WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Hosting
Case No. D2005-0793
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Arkansas , United States of America, , represented by Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Hosting, Bally, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dotster, Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July�29,�2005. On July�29,�2005, the Center transmitted by email to Dotster, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On July�29,�2005, Dotster, Inc. 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 August�4,�2005. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August�24,�2005. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August�26,�2005.
The Center appointed William R. Towns as the sole panelist in this matter on September�12,�2005. 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 a large and well known retailer. The Complainant operates Wal-Mart Stores and Supercenters in the United States of America and elsewhere. The Complainant has registered the service mark WAL-MART for retail services and makes extensive use of the mark, which is well known. The Complainant also operates websites at various locations including “”, “”, and “.”, which provide information about Wal-Mart stores and allow consumers to shop online.
The Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name . The�disputed domain name resolves to the Respondent’s website “www.”, an adult-oriented website containing sexually explicit content and links to commercial pornographic sites, including a link to the Respondent’s “WALMARTEXPOSED PPV Video Store” where various adult-oriented, pornographic videos can be downloaded or viewed on a pay-per-minute basis. The Respondent’s web page also purportedly depicts individuals performing sexual acts in Wal-Mart stores and parking lots.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered WAL-MART mark in which the Complainant has rights.1 According to the Complainant, the Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to its website, where the Respondent displays and sells adult-oriented, pornographic, and sexually explicit material, and display links to various commercial websites that display and sell adult-oriented, pornographic, and sexually explicit material.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, but rather is seeking to capitalize on the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s mark in order to attract internet users to its website. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name “to market pornographic services which are not provided by the Complainant” is evidence of bad faith registration and use, and requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Scope of the Policy
The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store, WIPO Case No.�D2002-0774. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of this Panel is limited to providing a remedy in cases of “the abusive registration of domain names”, also known as “cybersquatting”. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0187. See Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, paragraphs�169 & 170. Paragraph�15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.
Paragraph�4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:
(i) The domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name; and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Cancellation or transfer of the domain name are the sole remedies provided to the Complainant under the Policy, as set forth in paragraph�4(i).
Paragraph�4(b) sets forth four situations under which the registration and use of a domain name is deemed to be in bad faith, but does not limit a finding of bad faith to only these situations.
Paragraph�4(c) in turn identifies three means through which a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Although the complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph�4(a), a number of panels have concluded that paragraph�4(c) shifts the burden to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WAL-MART mark for purposes of paragraph�4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Complainant beyond question has established rights in the WAL-MART mark through registration and use. At a bare minimum, the mark is entitled to a presumption of validity by virtue of registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2000-0047.
The disputed domain name , incorporates the Complainant’s WAL-MART mark in its entirety. The critical inquiry under the first element of paragraph 4(a) is simply whether the mark and domain name, when directly compared, have confusing similarity. The Panel finds that to be the case here. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0662 (domain name incorporating mark in its entirety is confusingly similar). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden under paragraph�4(a)(i).
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant clearly has not authorized the Respondent to use the WAL-MART mark or to incorporate its well known mark in a domain name. Nothing in the record reflects that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Nevertheless, the Respondent is using the domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive mark, to divert Internet traffic to the Respondent’s adult-oriented website, where pictures purportedly depicting individuals engaged in sexual acts in Wal-Mart stores are displayed.
Prior panel decisions such as Auto-C, LLC v. MustN, WIPO Case No. D2004-0025, have deemed such a showing sufficient to shift the burden to the respondent to come forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel in this case is persuaded that a prima facie showing has been made for purposes of paragraph�4(a)(ii) that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO Case No.�D2000-0020.
Once a complainant makes a prima facie showing that a respondent lacks rights to the domain name at issue, the respondent must come forward with proof that it has some legitimate interest in the domain name to rebut this presumption. Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2000-0270. Pursuant to paragraph�4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
In this case, the Respondent has not submitted any response to the Complaint. Some panels have held that a respondent’s lack of response can be construed as an admission that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0624. Other panel decisions note that adverse inferences may be drawn from a respondent’s failure to reply. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0403. Certainly, in the absence of any submission by the Respondent, this Panel may accept all reasonable inferences and allegations included in the Complaint as true. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0009.
There is nothing in the record remotely suggesting that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead the record reflects the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to capitalize on the Complainant’s distinctive mark by diverting internet users to a website where the Respondent operates an adult-oriented website containing sexually explicit conduct, from which the Respondent offers for sale sexually explicit and arguably pornographic material.
In view of the foregoing, the Panel cannot avoid the conclusion that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with an offering of goods or services. Nevertheless, this showing without more does not demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph�4(c)(i). It is well settled that there can be no bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy where the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. See, e.g., First American Funds, Inc. v. Ult. Search, Inc, WIPO Case No.�D2000-1840. The Panel concludes for the reasons discussed below that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph�4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the Respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the Respondent intentionally is using the domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website 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 the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The overriding objective of the Policy is to prevent abusive domain name registration and use for the benefit of legitimate trademark owners, and the Panel notes that the examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph�4(b) are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances from which such bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0003.
In this case, the totality of circumstances demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph�4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is intentionally using the disputed domain name – which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well known mark – for commercial gain, to divert internet users to its sexually oriented website. There can be no question in the circumstances of this case, and particularly given the nature of the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s name and well known WAL-MART mark on its website, that the Respondent deliberately chose the domain name in order to capitalize on the trademark or service mark value inherent in the WAL-MART name. As noted in Research In Motion Limited v. Dustin Picov, WIPO Case No. D2001-0492, when a domain name is so obviously connected with a Complainant and its mark or products, its very use by a registrant with no connection to the Complainant suggests “opportunistic bad faith”.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)iii) of the Policy to demonstrate that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 transferred to the Complainant.
William R. Towns
Sole Panelist
Dated: September�20,�20051 The Complainant initially registered the WAL-MART mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on July�20,�1993, based on use of the mark since July�1,�1962. A second registration for the mark was obtained on October�5,�2004, based on the Complainant’s use of the mark as early as March 1992.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy