WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Corbis Corporation v. Wan-Fu China, Ltd.
Case No. D2006-1294
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Corbis Corporation, of Seattle, Washington, United States of America, represented by Preston Gates & Ellis LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Wan-Fu China, Ltd., of Nassau, Bahamas.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with BelgiumDomains, LLC.
3. Procedural History
The original Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October�6,�2006. On October�9,�2006, the Center transmitted by email to Compana LLC, the registrar at the time of the original Complaint, a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On October�13,�2006, Compana LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Manila Industries, Inc., the registrant at the time of the original Complaint, was listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the original 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 Manila Industries of the original Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October�23,�2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November�12,�2006. Manila Industries did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Manila Industries’ default on November�15,�2006.
The Center appointed Carol Anne Been as the sole panelist in this matter on December�11,�2006. 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.
On December�13,�2006, the Complainant informed by e-mail to the Center the changes in the registrant of the domain name, namely, that Manila Industries was no longer the registrant of the domain name. On December�14,�15, and 18, 2006, the Center requested by e-mail to the concerned registrar, Compana LLC, to confirm the lock of the domain name during the pending administrative proceeding.
According to the Whois search of December�18,�2006, the registrar of the domain name appeared to have changed to DomainDoorman, LLC. The registrant of the domain name appeared to be the same. According to the Whois search of December�22,�2006, the registrar of the domain name appeared to be changed to BelgiumDomains, LLC and the registrant of the domain name to Wan-Fu China, Ltd.
On December�27,�2006, the Center requested by e-mail to the concerned registrar, Compana LLC, to advise the Center on the circumstances in which the registrar changes had taken place. On December�30,�2006, Compana LLC informed the Center that “this name was not transferred to another registrar. It appears to have been expired/deleted.”
Subsequently, the Center transmitted by email to BelgiumDomains, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January�15,�2007, BelgiumDomains transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Wan-Fu China, Ltd. is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
On February�7,�2007, a Panel Order provided the Complainant 10 days to submit an Amendment of the Complaint reflecting the current registrant of the domain name and the current registrar. The Amended Complaint was filed with Center on February�16,�2007. The Center verified that the Amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Policy, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules.
On February�22,�2007, the Center issued a new ‘Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding’, and sent that Notification, along with the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint, any emails submitted pursuant to paragraph 2, and the February�7,�2007, Panel Order, to Wan-Fu China, Ltd. in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules, and the proceedings commenced. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March�14,�2007. Wan-Fu China, the Respondent, did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March�15,�2007.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant, Corbis Corporation (“Corbis”), a provider of digital imaging and stock photography, owns two federal trademark registrations for CORBIS, Registration Number 1,990,414 for interactive multimedia products, and Registration Number 2,024,391 for licensing digital images and providing access to a database of images. The Complainant claims use of the CORBIS mark since as early as 1995. In addition to its registered trademarks, the Complainant operates a website using the domain name, .
The Respondent registered the Domain Name, , on December�19,�2006. The Domain Name leads to a portal website that provides links to other websites with photograph- and image-related services that compete with the Complainant.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
i. Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. The Complainant claims that the Respondent is using the Complainant’s coined trademark CORBIS in conjunction with the word “photography,” which describes the Complainant’s products and services, to improperly divert Internet traffic from the Complainant’s website, “www.”, to Respondent’s website, “www.”.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent’s website is offering goods and services identical to the products and services for which the Complainant has a federally registered trademark and is well-known.
ii. Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name.
iii. Domain Name Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith by intentionally trying to attract to its site, for commercial gain, Internet users seeking the Complainant. The Complainant claims that the Respondent likely benefits by diverting Internet users to its site so they click on links of the Complainant’s competitors, for which the Respondent may obtain click-through revenue.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following:
(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;
(ii) the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it holds rights in the mark CORBIS and uses the mark in connection with photograph- and image-related services. The Complainant’s trademark CORBIS is distinctive. When a domain name incorporates a distinctive trademark, in its entirety, the domain name may be confusingly similar to the distinctive mark. See, e.g., Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Scott A. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO, WIPO Case No. D2000-0138 (finding confusingly similar to QUIXTAR).
Furthermore, the addition of the descriptive term “photography” in the Domain Name describes the Complainant’s products and services. The addition of the descriptive term describing the Complainant’s products and services increases the likelihood that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., Ansell Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2001-0110 (finding confusingly similar to the trademark ANSELL for condoms).
Accordingly, the Administrative Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not set forth any evidence of circumstances of the type described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy to demonstrate rights to and any legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name is unopposed. The Panel may infer from the lack of response that the Respondent does not have any legitimate interest in the Domain Name. See, e.g., The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO Case No. D2002-1064.
Accordingly, the Administrative Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that evidence of bad faith arises when the Respondent, by using the domain name, intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in a manner that is likely to divert consumers looking for the Complainant and directs such consumers to websites with photograph- and image-related services that compete with Complainant’s products and services. It is likely that the Respondent benefits from click-through revenue when consumers click on links of the Complainant’s competitors. See, e.g., Nokia Corp. v. N, WIPO Case No. D2000-0102 (presuming that Respondent has entered into commercial agreements to benefit financially from clicking on links of its website).
Accordingly, the Administrative Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name 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.
Carol Anne Been
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 1, 2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy