Источник информации:
официальный сайт ВОИС
Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
State of Wisconsin v. Pro-Life Domains, Inc.
Case No. D2003-0432
1. The Parties
The Complainant is the State of Wisconsin, Department of Administration, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
The Respondent is Pro-Life Domains, Inc., also known as High Traffic Pro-Life Domains only $999, Bronx, New York, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <wisconsindepartmentofrevenue.com> (the "domain name") is registered with Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 4, 2003. On June 5, 2003, the Center transmitted a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. The Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response. 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
June 23, 2003.
The Respondent
failed to
respond
and a Notification
of Respondent’s
Default
was issued
on July 24, 2003.
The Center
appointed
Mark Partridge
as panelist
in this
matter on
July 28, 2003.
The panel
finds that
it was properly
constituted.
Mr. Partridge
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
is the State
of Wisconsin,
Department
of Administration,
a sovereign
state of
the Union.
One of the
departments
operated
by the State
of Wisconsin
is the Wisconsin
Department
of Revenue.
This department
and its
predecessors
have performed
the state’s
taxing functions
since 1868.
The department
has provided
services
under the
name Wisconsin
Department
of Revenue
for many
years and
is commonly
known to
the public
by that
name.
The domain
name was
registered
on April 13, 2002.
The Registrant
is identified
as "High
Traffic
Pro-Life
Domains
only $999
Pro-Life
Domains,
Inc."
The domain
name initially
directed
Internet
users to
a site at
"www.abortionsaremurder.org."
More recently,
the domain
name is
used to
redirect
traffic
to "www.rxmeds.com,"
a commercial
website
for the
retail sale
of prescription
drugs.
5. Parties’
Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant
contends
that the
domain name
is identical
to a name
in which
Complainant
owns trademark
rights.
Complainant
contends
that Respondent
has not
made any
bona
fide
offering
of goods
or services
under the
domain name,
is not known
by the domain
name, and
has not
made any
fair or
non-commercial
use of the
domain name.
Therefore,
it asserts
that Respondent
lacks any
right or
legitimate
interest
in the domain
name.
Complainant
finally
contends
that Respondent
registered
and used
the domain
name in
bad faith
by using
it to redirect
traffic
to an unauthorized
site.
B. Respondent
Respondent
has not
responded
to Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion
and Findings
Paragraph 14
of the Rules
provides
that in
the event
of default
the panel
"may
draw such
inferences
therefrom
as it considers
appropriate."
Paragraph
15(a) of
the Rules
instructs
the panel
that "A
panel shall
decide a
complaint
on the basis
of the statements
and documents
submitted
in accordance
with the
Policy,
these Rules
and any
rules or
principles
of law that
it deems
applicable."
Both parties
here are
located
in the U.S.,
so it is
appropriate
to apply
U.S. legal
principles.
Under U.S.
law, where
a defendant
has defaulted,
the facts
set forth
in the plaintiff’s
complaint
are deemed
admitted.
The court,
however,
is required
to evaluate
the complaint
to ensure
that it
properly
states a
claim. GlobalSantaFe
Corp. v.
Globalsantafe.com,
250
F.Supp.2d
610, 612
(E.D.Va.
2003).
Where a
party fails
to present
evidence
in its control,
the panel
may draw
adverse
inferences
regarding
those facts.
Mary-Lynn
Mondich
and American
Vintage
Wine Biscuits,
Inc. v.
Shane Brown,
doing business
as Big Daddy’s
Antiques,
WIPO
Case No.
D2000-0004
(February 16, 2000).
Paragraph
4(a) of
the Policy
requires
that the
Complainant
must prove
each of
the following
three elements
to obtain
an order
that a domain
name should
be 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;
(ii) the
Respondent
has no rights
or legitimate
interests
in respect
of the domain
name; and
(iii) the
domain name
has been
registered
and is being
used in
bad faith.
Here, since
Respondent
has defaulted,
it is therefore
appropriate
to accept
the facts
asserted
by Complainant
and to draw
adverse
inferences
of fact
against
Respondent.
A. Identical
or Confusingly
Similar
The domain
name is
identical
to a name
used by
Complainant
to provide
public services.
There is
no indication
that the
name Wisconsin
Department
of Revenue
is registered
as a trade
or service
mark. However,
it appears
that Complainant
has used
the name
in connection
with services
rendered
to the public
for many
years. Therefore,
the panel
concludes
that Complainant
has common
law trademark
rights in
the name.
B. Rights
or Legitimate
Interests
Complainant
has made
a prima
facie
showing
that the
Respondent
lacks any
rights or
legitimate
interest
in the domain
name. Respondent
has not
made a bona
fide
offering
of goods
or services
under the
domain name,
does not
hold any
trademark
registrations
relating
to that
name, and
is not generally
known by
that name.
Further,
Respondent
is not making
fair or
noncommercial
use of the
domain name.
C. Registered
and Used
in Bad Faith
It appears
that Respondent
registered
and used
the domain
name for
the purpose
of misdirecting
Internet
users to
a commercial
site based
on confusion
with Complainant’s
name. The
domain name
redirects
Internet
users to
a commercial
site selling
prescription
drugs. Using
a party’s
name to
redirect
Internet
users to
an unrelated
commercial
site for
profit is
recognized
under the
Policy as
evidence
of bad faith
registration
and use.
Policy,
Paragraph
4(b)(iv).
Further
evidence
of bad faith
registration
and use
appears
in the registration
record.
The domain
name registrant
is identified
as "High
Traffic
Pro-Life
Domains
Only $999,"
a clear
admission
that Respondent
registered
the domain
name with
the bad
faith intent
of selling
it for profit.
7. Decision
For these
reasons,
in accordance
with Paragraphs
4(i) of
the Policy
and 15 of
the Rules,
the panel
orders that
the domain
name <wisconsindepartmentofrevenue.com>
be transferred
to the Complainant.
Mark
Partridge
Sole Panelist
Dated:
August 4, 2003