WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Domains by Proxy, Inc./Samina Rahman Case No. D2009-1121 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation of Los Angeles, California, United States of America, represented by Cantor Colburn LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Domains by Proxy, Inc./Samina Rahman of Scottsdale, Arizona and Dhaka, Bangladesh, respectively. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 20, 2009. On August 21, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 24, 2009, GoD, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 28, 2009 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 31, 2009. 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” or “UDRP”), 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 September 2, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 22, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 23, 2009.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on October 1, 2009. 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 one of the six major American film studios. It is a subsidiary of News Corporation, the media conglomerate owned by Rupert Murdoch, and was founded in 1934 as the result of a merger of the two entities Fox Film Corporation and Twentieth Century Pictures. Among others, the Complainant offers online sports entertainment, including news, information, up-to-date scores, play-by-play coverage of games, and streaming videos, accessible by Internet users globally.
The Complainant's television broadcasts under the FOX SPORTS mark reach more than 99 million viewers in the United States and over 1 billion viewers worldwide. The website “” consistently enjoys a ranking among the top 400 web sites visited on the Internet as a whole and on average is visited by more than 13 million visitors a month.
The Complainant owns over 500 active worldwide registrations in over 80 countries for its FOX and FOX SPORTS marks, dating back to 1995.
According to information by the Complainant, the Respondent's website under the disputed domain name purportedly offers sports coverage similar to that of the Complainant, namely coverage of the National Football League games. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's FOX SPORTS marks. The Respondent's addition of the term “live” is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from relevant FOX SPORTS marks.
The Respondent cannot claim or show any rights to the disputed domain name that are superior to the Complainant's rights in its FOX SPORTS mark. Furthermore, there exists no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent that would give rise to any license, permission, or authorization by which the Respondent could own or use the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
It is evident that the Respondent's only purpose in registering the disputed domain name was to divert traffic away from the Complainant's website to its own web site for commercial gain, and by confusing consumers into believing that the Respondent's site is sponsored, endorsed, or otherwise approved of or authorized by Complainant.
For these reasons, the Complainant requests that the Administrative Panel issue a decision that the disputed domain name be immediately transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's FOX SPORTS marks. The Respondent's addition of the term “live” is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from relevant FOX SPORTS marks (cf. Fox News Network, LLC v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Worldwide Directory Services,WIPO Case No. D2007-1782 ).
The Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under the circumstances of this case, there are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the domain name at issue.
The Complainant, having made a prima facie case which remains unrebutted, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent offers online sports coverage, including live games, matches, and tournaments on its website connected to the disputed domain name, services that are identical to those offered by the Complainant under the Complainant's FOX SPORTS mark. It is evident that the Respondent's only purpose in registering the disputed domain name was to divert traffic away from the Complainant's website to its own web site for commercial gain, and by confusing consumers into believing that the Respondent's site is sponsored, endorsed, or otherwise approved of or authorized by Complainant. Such activity falls squarely within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
It may also be concluded that the Respondent knew of the existence of the Complainant's trademark and its significance in the United States market.
Under the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent's conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use, thus fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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.
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 6, 2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy