WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Ho Nim Case No. D2010-0877 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Jackson National Life Insurance Company of Michigan, United States of America, represented by Butzel Long of United States of America.
The Respondent is Ho Nim of Shanghai the People's Republic of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with A, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 31, 2010. On June 1, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to A, Inc a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 2, 2010, A, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 June 7, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 27, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 28, 2010.
The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 2010. 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 has traded in the United States since the 1960's. It offers insurance and investment-related services.
The Complainant owns, inter alia, United States trade mark no. 2,338,819 for JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY in classes 35 and 36 dated April 12, 1999.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 22, 2009.
As of May 13, 2010, there was a parking page at the disputed domain name consisting principally of a list of sponsored links to life insurance websites. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is aware of no other entity in the United States or abroad offering similar services to the Complainant under the name “Jackson Life Insurance”. No such registered or pending marks appear on the United States register apart from those owned by the Complainant.
The Complainant offers services under its marks via the website at “”.
The disputed domain name includes the phrase “Jackson Live Insurance”.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark as to sight, sound and meaning. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name but intends to misleadingly divert consumers for commercial gain. The Respondent's website is commercial in nature as it includes links to other life insurance company websites.
The Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is calculated to mislead and divert to the Respondent's website consumers who may be trying to reach the Complainant. Those consumers will be misdirected to the Complainant's competitors in a manner that commercially benefits the Respondent. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's website. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the term “Jackson National Life Insurance Company” arising from its registered trade mark.
Disregarding the domain suffix, the only differences between the trade mark and the disputed domain name are the replacement of “life” with “live” and the abbreviation of “company” to “co”. These differences are entirely insignificant. The trade mark and disputed domain name remain virtually identical.
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must establish at least a prima facie case under this heading and, if that is made out, the evidential onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the presumption of absence of rights or legitimate interests thereby created. See, e.g., Atlas Copco Aktiebolag v. Accurate Air Engineering, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0070.
The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trade mark.
As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel has concluded below that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking the Complainant's products and services. Such use of the disputed domain name could not be said to be bona fide.
There is no evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy apply.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights and legitimate interests and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel has little difficulty in concluding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's distinctive mark, it is obvious that that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant's trade mark in mind.
The Respondent has not come forward to deny that the Complainant's assertions of bad faith. It is difficult to conceive of any genuine reason why the Respondent would wish to register the disputed domain name and the Respondent has offered no explanation.
On the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used for a website consisting of sponsored links to sites offering services competing directly with those of the Complainant.
The Panel concludes from the foregoing that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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.
Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 13, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy