WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
ADT Services A.G. v. Alarm Services, Cencom Inc., Safeguard America, S
Case No. D2007-0459
1. The Parties
Complainant is ADT Services A.G., of Schafhausen, Switzerland, represented by Christopher & Weisberg, P.A., United States of America.
Respondents are Alarm Services, Cencom Inc., Safeguard America, S, of Washington, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Go Daddy Software.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 23, 2007. On March 26, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Go Daddy a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On March 28, Go Daddy Software transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondents are listed as the registrants and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 5, 2007. 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 13, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 3, 2007. Respondents did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center subsequently notified Respondents of default.
The Center appointed Sally M. Abel as the sole panelist in this matter on May 23, 2007. 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
Complainant, ADT Services A.G., manufactures and sells home security products and services internationally, including the United States, under the marks ADT, ADT ALWAYS THERE, ADT ADDRESS ALERT AND DESIGN, ADT MONOGRAM, and others. Complainant has owned two U.S. federal trademark registrations of ADT since 1961 (Reg. Nos. 710,507 and 710,708). Complainant itself, or through its licensees, maintains over 70 ADT-based domains, including and .
Respondents registered the disputed domain name on March 4, 2006. Respondents use the domain name to operate a website that automatically directs consumers to which offers alarm system products and monitoring services which directly compete with Complainant’s services.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondents’ domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADT marks.
2. Respondents do not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
3. Respondents registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondents
Respondents did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Rules provide: “If a Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the complaint.” Rules, paragraph 5(e). See also Rules, paragraph 14. There is no Response in this case; there are no exceptional circumstances presented. The Complaint establishes that Complainant has met its burden of proof on each of the required elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant owns trademark rights in ADT and other ADT-based marks. While the domain name in question is not identical to any of Complainant’s marks, it is confusingly similar in that it contains Complainant’s ADT mark in its entirety with the addition of the dictionary term “monitoring”; further, monitoring is one of the security services offered by Complainant in connection with its ADT mark, and by Respondents. The addition of a generic word, used by Complainant and Respondents in connection with their competing services, to Complainant’s mark, is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark. It is clear to the Panel that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Complainant has met its burden on this factor.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that there is nothing in the available record to suggest that Respondents have any legitimate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant states that it has not authorized or licensed Respondents’ activities. The domain name does not comprise Respondents’ listed name or names, or a name by which they are apparently known, nor does it seem from the available record that they use or have used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute.
Complainant has met its burden on this factor.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds the Respondents’ registration and use of the domain name in question is in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. For commercial gain, Respondents intentionally have used and use the domain name to attract Internet users to their website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark.1 Respondents, which apparently provide competing security products and monitoring services, registered the domain name in question on March 4, 2006, and use the domain to lead consumers to their monitoring services. The Panel finds it implausible that Respondents, which are in the security monitoring industry, were not familiar with Complainant and its marks, which have been used in the United States of America since 1961, at the time Respondents obtained the domain, especially since Respondents reference Complainant’s services on the website. Respondents, being well aware of Complainant and its mark, nevertheless registered a domain name fully containing Complainant’s mark and a term descriptive of goods and services offered by the Complainant, and use that domain name to automatically direct consumers to goods and services that compete with those of Complainant.
Complainant has met its burden on this factor.
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.
Sally M. Abel
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 6, 2007
1 The Panel notes also that Respondent Cencom Inc. is no stranger to deliberately obtaining domain names comprising other’s trademarks. E.g., Google Inc. v. Cencom Inc., FA0603000669284 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2006) ( based on GOOGLE mark).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy