юридическая фирма 'Интернет и Право'
Основные ссылки










Яндекс цитирования

Рассылка 'BugTraq: Закон есть закон'



Rambler's Top100



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

Yahoo! Inc. v. Eitan Zviely, et al.

Case No. D2000-0273

 

1. The Parties

Complainant is Yahoo! Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3420 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, California 95051, U.S.A. ("Yahoo!"). Respondents are:

Eitan Zviely, a/k/a NAMES OZ, 5551212.NET, and 5551212.ORG (Complaint, Exhibit 1a) and Ayton Zviely (Complaint, Exhibit 16, page 2),

Zvieli Fisher, 18034 Ventura Blvd. 225, Encino, CA 91316, U.S.A.; email address: america@instanet.com,

F.Z., 18034 Ventura Blvd. 225, Encino, CA 91316, U.S.A.; email address: america@instanet.com,

OZ domains, POB 480167, Los Angeles, CA 90048, U.S.A.; email address: amega@pacbell.net,

E.Z.O.F., 18034 Ventura Blvd. 225, Encino, CA 91316, U.S.A.; email address: america@instanet.com,

E&O Domains, 914 Westwood Blvd. #177, Los Angeles, CA 90024 U.S.A.; email address: micropost@csi.com, and

Fisher Zvieli, 18034 Ventura Blvd. 225, Encino, CA 91316, U.S.A.; email address: america@instanet.com.

 

2. Domain Names and Registrar

Each of the 37 domain names in issue ("YAHOO! Formative Domain Names"), the registrant, the date of registration, and status of the domain name according to Network Solutions, Inc. are:

ATLANTAYAHOO.COM Zvieli Fisher March 26, 1998 Active

AYAHOO.COM OZ domains April 15, 1998 Active

BOSTONYAHOO.COM Zvieli Fisher March 26, 1998 Active

CAYAHOO.COM F.Z. April 7, 1998 Active

DCYAHOO.COM Zvieli Fisher March 26, 1998 Active

DFWYAHOO.COM Zvieli Fisher March 26, 1998 Active

JAHU.COM Fisher Zvieli March 23, 1998 Active

KYAHOO.COM OZ domains April 15, 1998 Active

LAYAHOO.COM Zvieli Fisher March 26, 1998 Active

NYAHOO.COM F.Z. April 6, 1998 Active

NYYAHOO.COM Zvieli Fisher March 26, 1998 Active

PAGERYAHOO.COM Fisher Zvieli March 23, 1998 Active

SEATTLEYAHOO.COM Zvieli Fisher March 26, 1998 Active

WYAHOO.COM E.Z.O.F. March 31, 1998 Active

YAGHOO.COM E.Z.O.F. March 29, 1998 Active

YAHJOO.COM E.Z.O.F. March 29, 1998 Active

YAHOA.COM E&O Domains June 10 1998 Active

YAHOOCA.COM F.Z. April 7, 1998 Active

YAHOODE.COM F.Z. April 7, 1998 Active

YAHOOE.COM Zvieli Fisher March 26, 1998 Active

YAHOOF.COM OZ domains April 15, 1998 Active

YAHOOFR.COM F.Z. April 7, 1998 Active

YAHOOLA.COM Zvieli Fisher March 26, 1998 Active

YAHOONY.COM Zvieli Fisher March 26, 1998 Active

YAHOOP.COM E.Z.O.F. March 29, 1998 Active

YAHOOUK.COM F.Z. April 7, 1998 Active

YAHOP.COM E.Z.O.F. March 29, 1998 Active

YAHPOO.COM E.Z.O.F. March 29, 1998 Active

YALHOO.COM OZ domains April 15, 1998 Active

YAOHH.COM E&O Domains June 10, 1998 Active

YASHOO.COM E.Z.O.F. March 29, 1998 Active

YAYOU.COM Fisher Zvieli March 23, 1998 Active

YHAHOO.COM Fisher Zvieli March 23, 1998 Active

YHU.COM E.Z.O.F. March 29, 1998 Active

YIAHOO.COM E.Z.O.F. March 30, 1998 Active

YOUHOO.COM Fisher Zvieli March 23, 1998 Active

YUAHOO.COM E.Z.O.F. March 29, 1998. Active

Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) is the registrar for each of the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names.

 

3. Procedural History

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) received Yahoo!’s complaint on April 7, 2000, via email, and on April 10, 2000, in hard copy form. The Center has verified that the complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules). Yahoo! has made the required payment to the Center. The formal date of the commencement of this administrative proceeding is April 20, 2000.

On April 14, 2000, the Center transmitted via email to Network Solutions a request for registrar verification in connection with this case. On April 17, 2000, Network Solutions transmitted via email to the Center Network Solutions’ Verification Response, (1) confirming that the registrants of the domain names are as stated above, (2) identifying the administrative, etc. contacts, (3) confirming that Network Solutions’ 4.0 Service Agreement is in effect with respect to each domain name, and (4) stating that each domain name is in ‘Active’ status.

On April 20, 2000, the Center transmitted Notification of Complaint and Commencement of the Administrative Proceeding, together with a copy of the Complaint, to the respective registrants via email at the addresses identified in the NSI verification response, via email to postmaster for each website, and also via post/courier to the postal addresses identified in the NSI verification response. The Center advised that (1) the response was due by May 9, 2000, (2) in the event of default the Center would appoint a Panel to review the facts and to decide the case, (3) the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondents’ default as it considers appropriate, (4) Yahoo! had elected for the matter to be decided by a single panelist who would be appointed within five days of the date the response is due, (5) the fees for the administrative proceeding will be paid in their entirety by Yahoo!, (6) the Panel will decide the case within 14 days of its appointment, and (7) the Center can be contacted at stated postal and email addresses, a stated telephone number, and a stated fax number.

Copies of the foregoing notice addressed to Zvieli Fisher and others at 18034 Ventura Blvd. 225, Encino, CA 91316, U.S.A., were returned to the Center as undeliverable. Also, on April 20, 2000, it appeared to the Center that it could not connect with the postmaster at any of the 37 websites.

On May 19, 2000, the Center transmitted to the parties via email, and on May 20, 2000, via post/courier, Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date. The notification advised that Mr. David Plant had been appointed as the single panelist 1, and the decision was due June 2, 2000. On May 23, 2000, the Center transmitted the file in the case via courier to Mr. Plant. On June 1, 2000, the Center advised the parties via email that the due date for the decision was extended to June 16, 2000.

 

4. Factual Background; Parties’ Contentions

a. The Trademarks

The complaint (paragraph 30) is based on the trademark and service mark YAHOO!, registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to eight registrations, copies of which appear at Exhibit 5 to the complaint, viz.:

YAHOO! Reg. No. 2,040,222 Feb. 25, 1997

YAHOO! (stylized) Reg. No. 2,040,691 Feb. 25, 1997

YAHOO! Reg. No. 2,076,457 July 1, 1997

YAHOO! Reg. No. 2,159,115 May 19, 1998

YAHOO! Reg. No. 2,187,292 Sept. 8, 1998

YAHOO! Reg. No. 2,243,909 May 4, 1999

YAHOO! Reg. No. 2.243,823 May 4, 1999

YAHOO! Reg. No. 2,273,128 Aug. 24, 1999.

The foregoing trademark and service mark registrations relate inter alia to computer software for various searching and retrieving purposes, books, promoting goods and services via advertisement on electronic sites, computer services, magazines, email services, posters, shirts, etc., computer software for use as a screen saver, housewares, etc., demographic consultation services, computer software for use in creating and designing web sites, online retail and mail order services, telecommunications services, broadcasting services, consulting re marketing online, making reservations and bookings, and club services.

Yahoo! asserts also (paragraph 31) that it owns the domain name YAHOO.COM, registered with NSI on January 18, 1995, and used to identify the Yahoo! website since about that date.

b. The Complaint

Yahoo! asserts on information and belief (paragraph 8) that Eitan Zviely registers domain names under fictitious company names, including the Respondents named in the complaint among others, "in order to evade service of process and to conceal his true identity from trademark owners who wish to pursue their rights against him."

Yahoo! asserts (paragraph 9):

"a. Twenty of the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names fully incorporate Complainant’s valuable and protectable trademark YAHOO! within the second-level domain name under the top level .COM. The remaining seventeen YAHOO! Formative Domain Names, comprised of typographical misspellings and phonetic misspellings of Complainant’s YAHOO! mark, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark.

"b. Zviely does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names by virtue of the fact that Yahoo!’s YAHOO! mark is famous, and Zviely’s use of the mark is unauthorized.

"c. Zviely’s registration and use of the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names meet the bad faith requirement described in Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP [the Policy, copy at Exhibit 2]."

At paragraph 10, Yahoo! avers that a copy of "this Complaint" has been sent by certified mail, return receipt requested to "Respondent Zviely." (Yahoo! does not identify the address to which the complaint was allegedly sent or state that the exhibits accompanied the complaint.)

At paragraph 14, Yahoo! avers that Yahoo! is "a global Internet communications, commerce and media company" offering "a branded network of searching, directory, information, communication, and shopping services to millions of Internet users daily." The main Yahoo! site can be accessed at http://www.yahoo.com. A printout of the main page is at Exhibit 3.

At paragraphs 15 and 16, Yahoo! describes the genesis of Yahoo! and avers Yahoo!’s web directory was first known as YAHOO! in June 1994.

In paragraph 17, Yahoo! asserts its current market capitalization is approximately $100 billion.

At paragraph 18, Yahoo! asserts that its directory and search services enable Internet users, "even non-technical ones," to find information relevant for their purposes out of the vast amount of content on the Web.

At paragraphs 19-21, Yahoo! describes its advertising services and avers its income is "primarily derived from the sale of advertising and co-branding or sponsorship agreements with other companies." Yahoo! asserts it annual revenues have grown from $1,620,000 in 1995 to $588,068,000 in 1999.

At paragraphs 22-25, Yahoo! avers that (a) its popular website is one of the leading web guides, (b) the YAHOO! trademark is one of the most recognized brands associated with the Internet, (c) the Yahoo! website has been ranked number one among websites in numerous categories, and (d) in 1998 and 1999, the website averaged 100's of millions of page views per day or tens of millions discrete visits per month. In September 1998, Yahoo! had over 25 million unique registered users, i.e. users who register with Yahoo! to participate in Yahoo!’s registered member services, including shopping, auctions, classifieds, email, clubs, calendars, message boards, chat rooms, etc. As of December 31, 1999, Yahoo! had over 120 million unique registered users. The Yahoo! website has been recognized with numerous industry awards.

At paragraphs 26-27, Yahoo! describes various YAHOO! websites "under the YAHOO! mark and using YAHOO-formative trademarks and domain names" -- in specific countries (e.g. YAHOO.COM.CN (China), YAHOO.CA (Canada), YAHOO.CO.UK)(The United Kingdom)), regions (e.g. YAHOO.COM.AU (Australia and New Zealand)), and U.S. cities (e.g. NYC.YAHOO.COM, BOSTON. YAHOO.COM, LA.YAHOO.COM, ATLANTA. YAHOO.COM, SEATTLE.YAHOO.COM, D.C.YAHOO.COM, MIAMI.YAHOO.COM)). Yahoo! also operates other websites specific to particular topics or population groups (e.g. CHINESE.YAHOO.COM, YAHOOLIGANS.COM).

At paragraph 28, Yahoo! avers the YAHOO! mark and YAHOO.COM domain name have become famous, by virtue of (a) the arbitrary nature and inherent strength of the mark as applied to Yahoo!’s services, (b) the millions of visitors to the Yahoo! network of websites every day, (c) the millions of links to the YAHOO! site from third-party websites, and (d) Yahoo!’s extensive use, promotion, and registration of its YAHOO! mark. Yahoo! cites an opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Exhibit 4).

At paragraph 29, Yahoo! avers that Zviely is not and has never been authorized by Yahoo! to use the YAHOO! marks.

At paragraph 30, Yahoo! describes each of the eight federal trademark registrations referred to above in Section 4.a.

At paragraph 31, Yahoo! avers it owns the domain name YAHOO.COM, registered with NSI on January 18, 1995, and used to identify the YAHOO! website since that date.

At paragraph 32, Yahoo! avers that Yahoo!’s rights in the mark YAHOO! "and variations thereof" predate the registration of the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names by Zviely.

At paragraph 33, Yahoo! avers the YAHOO! marks have become valuable property of Yahoo! and enjoy "unquestionable fame as a result of favorable public acceptance and recognition worldwide."

As for Zviely’s activities, Yahoo! avers (paragraphs 34-48), the following:

At paragraph 34, Yahoo! avers Zviely is "a known cybersquatter," who registers domain names based on trademarks owned by others under fictitious registrant names -- exemplified by those mentioned in the complaint.

At paragraph 35, Yahoo! lists 50 trademarks which Zviely has allegedly adopted in his domain name registrations. At Exhibits 6-11, Yahoo! has included WHOIS printouts listing the first 50 domain names registered in the each of the name of each of the Respondents other than Zviely.

At paragraph 36, Yahoo! avers that Zviely registered the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names, which are confusingly similar to Yahoo!’s YAHOO! marks, "to take advantage of Internet users who mis-type domain names in the address line of the browser." Yahoo! asserts that Zviely "deliberately targeted Yahoo!’s city- and country-specific websites," citing ten Yahoo! websites allegedly mimicked by 16 of Respondents’ domain name registrations. Yahoo! asserts that the other 21 domain names were registered by Zviely "to target Internet users who were attempting to access Yahoo!’s website located at YAHOO.COM."

In paragraph 37, Yahoo! asserts that Zviely webforwarded the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names so that Internet users who mis-typed one of Yahoo!’s domain names were transported to Zviely’s search engine at 800GO.COM, leading Internet users to mistakenly believe they had arrived at a Yahoo! website or a Yahoo! sponsored website. Exhibits 12 and 13 show that Zviely registered the domain name 800GO.COM and the servers listed on the registration. (As shown in Exhibit 12, the registrant is Domain OZ.) Yahoo! further asserts that, because Zviely controls the servers, he controls the content of the websites hosted on the servers. Finally, all of the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names are hosted on Zviely’s servers.

In paragraph 38, Yahoo! asserts Zviely programmed the webforwarding of the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names with a delay of 0 seconds, thus "maliciously" preying on Internet users who would not have time to view the address line of their browsers and note the typographical error. As allegedly shown in the Exhibit 14 website printouts, all of the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names direct the user automatically to "800GO."

In paragraph 39, Yahoo! asserts that Zviely has unfairly competed with Yahoo! by promoting the 800GO.COM site as "twelve search engines in one." Yahoo! asserts that Zviely registered the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names to "deprive Yahoo! of the Internet traffic rightly intended for Yahoo!, thereby disrupting Yahoo!’s business and causing Yahoo! to lose revenue."

In paragraphs 40-42, Yahoo! refers to two lawsuits in which Zvieli Fisher et al. have been defendants and in which default judgments have been entered in favor of Microsoft and Prodigy. Exhibits 15-18 include those judgments.

In paragraph 43, Yahoo! asserts that Zviely’s registrations were in bad faith, viz.:

(a) Zviely has engaged in a pattern of registering trademark-related domain names.

(b) Zviely’s registration of the 37 domain names in issue here alone constitutes such a pattern.

(c) Zviely has registered countless other domain names, misspelling at least 50 well-known trademarks owned by third parties (see paragraph 35 and Exhibit 6).

(d) Domain OZ and Names O Z, two of Zviely’s fictitious business names, were found to have a pattern of bad faith registrations of trademark-related domain names (citing WIPO case no. D2000-0057).

In paragraph 44, Yahoo! avers Zviely’s registration and use of the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names have caused and are likely to continue to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to (a) affiliation, connection, or association of Zviely and Yahoo!, and (b) the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Yahoo!.

In paragraph 45, Yahoo! avers that Zviely’s registration and use of the domain names in issue mis-direct Internet users away from Yahoo!’s search engine toward Zviely’s own 800GO.COM search engine, primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor (Yahoo!).

In paragraph 46, Yahoo! avers Zviely’s registrations under phony names is evidence of bad faith, citing two cases, including WIPO case no. D2000-0003.

In paragraph 47, Yahoo! avers that with the sole exception of "the phonetically identical" JAHU.COM domain name, current attempts to access the websites associated with the domain names in issue return an error, with the notation "operation timed out." Yahoo! avers that Zvielys current use of JAHU.COM and his past use of the other domain names in issue both satisfy the use requirement of Section 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. Exhibit 19 is stated to be the website printout of www.37.com the webforwarding destination of the domain name JAHU.COM. (Exhibit 19 advertises 37 search engines.)

In paragraph 48, Yahoo! avers:

(1) Zviely is not using and has not used, or is not demonstrating and has not demonstrated an intent to use, the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services,

(2) Zviely is not now and has not been commonly known by the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names, and

(3) Zviely is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names without intending to mislead and divert consumers or to tarnish the YAHOO! mark for commercial gain.

As for relief, Yahoo! requests at paragraph 50 that the Panel "compel Zviely to produce the full list of domain names he registered incorporating and/or misspelling the YAHOO! mark." Yahoo! states that this request will not be "overly burdensome" because NSI will provide free-of-charge reports listing all domains registered to a particular NIC contact handle. Yahoo! states further that the WHOIS printouts at Exhibit 1 indicate Zviely’s contact handles.

In the concluding paragraph of the complaint,Yahoo! requests that the YAHOO! Formative Domain Names be transferred to Yahoo!.

c. Respondents’ Answer

Respondents have filed no answer, or any other document, with the Center.

 

5. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4.a of the Policy directs that Yahoo! must prove, with respect to each domain name in issue, each of the following:

(i) The domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to the Yahoo! trademark, and

(ii) Respondents have 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.

Paragraph 4.b of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) above shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4.c of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances which, if proved by respondent, shall demonstrate respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.

a. Identity or Confusing Similarity

Yahoo! urges, and has the burden of proving, that each of the 37 domain names in dispute is either identical to, or confusingly similar to, the Yahoo! mark. Respondents’ failure to respond does not relieve Yahoo! of its burden of proof on this element or on either of the other two elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. However, Respondents’ failure to deny any of Yahoo!’s averments permits this panel to take Yahoo!’s averments as true and to draw appropriate inferences.

On its face, each domain name in issue incorporates the term "Yahoo", or a close variant of "Yahoo". Twenty-two of the domain names in dispute include the term "Yahoo". Identity is clear. Each of the remaining 15 domain names in dispute includes a variant of "Yahoo, YAHU.COM and YHU.COM exhibiting perhaps the most noticeable variation on the term "Yahoo". In lights of the facts and factors discussed below, each of the remaining 15 domain names in issue, as well as each of the 22 domain names incorporating "Yahoo", is confusingly similar to the YAHOO! mark.

It is clear that the "Yahoo!" mark and name are widely and favorably known among millions of Internet users, in connection with a wide variety of services and goods. Yahoo! owns a wide variety of domain names incorporating the term "Yahoo", such as YAHOO.COM, YAHOO.COM.CN, YAHOO.COM.TW, YAHOO.COM.UK, NYC.YAHOO.COM, DC.YAHOO.COM, and SEATTLE.YAHOO.COM. The websites denoted by Yahoo!’s domain names are visited by millions of users daily.

Especially pertinent here, is the fact that Zviely has apparently used each of the websites in issue to direct users to Zviely’s Internet search services. Also pertinent, Yahoo! owns ten domain names including the term "YAHOO" relating to cities or countries that are plainly mimicked by 16 of the domain names in issue.

Also pertinent are (1) the webforwarding arrangements adopted by Zviely, (2) the promotion of "twelve search engines in one" at the "800GO.COM" website to which visitors to at least 30 of the websites in issue are directed (Exhibit 14), and (3) the promotion of 37 search engines at the forwarded site for the JAHU.COM domain name. Plainly, confusion is or would be likely in the minds of ordinary Internet users between the Yahoo! trademarks and service mark and each of the domain names in issue here.

This conclusion is reinforced by Zviely’s pattern of conduct in registering 37 Yahoo-like domain names, as well as dozens of other trademark-related domain names. Assuming Zviely intended to operate websites (he appears to have done so for some period of time), Zviely’s only purpose in registering so many trademark-related domain names must have been to trade on the good will and fame associated with those marks. Specifically, in light of the global fame and good will associated with Yahoo!’s marks and domain names, Zviely must necessarily have expected to attract visitors to his website. Confusing similarity is what Zviely has been counting on.

Confusing similarity turns on use, similarity of the marks and terms in question, similarity of products and services, similarity of channels of distribution, similarity of users, and the like. Zviely did all he could to benefit from those obvious similarities.

b. Rights or Legitimate Interests

On this record, no challenge has been leveled with respect to (1) the validity of any Yahoo! trademark or service mark, (2) Yahoo!’s rights in those marks with respect to Yahoo! services and goods, (3) the global fame and goodwill associated with those marks, or (4) any fact averred by Yahoo! as to promotion of the marks, use of the marks, and total sales of services and goods under the marks.

No challenge has been leveled with respect to Yahoo!’s averments as to (1) the pattern of Zviely’s conduct in registering as domain names well-known trademarks, (2) the apparently current "operation timed out" status of 36 of the domain name sites in issue, (3) Zviely’s use of the domain names was and is not bona fide, (4) Zviely is not and has not been commonly known by any of the domain names in issue, and (5) Zviely is not making legitimate use of the domain names in issue without intending to mislead and divert consumers from Yahoo! or to tarnish Yahoo!’s marks for commercial gain.

This record demonstrates that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests vis-a-vis Yahoo!.

c. Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Registration and use of the domain names in issue in bad faith are matters of the appropriate inferences to draw from circumstantial evidence. Each is to be proved by Yahoo!

Yahoo! avers that Respondents’ registration and use were in bad faith. Yahoo! buttressed this averment with averments as to (1) Zviely’s pattern of conduct of registering hundreds of domain names based on trademarks owned by others, (2) the confusing similarity between the 37 domain names in issue and Yahoo!’s marks, (3) Zviely’s programming of his websites to direct users away from the Yahoo! search engine, (4) Zviely’s registrations under phony names, and (5) Zviely’s continued use of the phonetically identical JAHU.COM domain name to direct users to Zviely’s search engines.

The foregoing demonstrates abundantly that Respondents have registered and have used the 37 YAHOO! Formative Domain Names in bad faith.

d. Paragraph 4.c Factors

With respect to the domain names in issue, by failing to respond to the complaint, Respondents have failed to prove any of the three circumstances set out in Paragraph 4.c of the Policy, viz.:

(i) before any notice to Respondents of the dispute, Respondent’s use of or preparations to use the domain name were in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services,

(ii) Respondents or a related entity have been commonly known by the domain name, and

(iii) Respondents are making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names in issue, "without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue."

As averred by Yahoo! and properly inferred from the undisputed facts as to Respondents’ conduct, each of these three factors must be resolved in favor of Yahoo!.

 

6. Decision

The panel has jurisdiction of this dispute. Respondents have received notice of the commencement of this proceeding, the Policy, the complaint, and the consequences of Respondents’ default. Respondents have been afforded due process.

Yahoo! requests that the panel compel Zviely to produce a full list of domain names he has registered incorporating and/or misspelling the YAHOO! mark. It is doubtful that the panel has authority to grant such relief. Even if the panel were to have such power, Yahoo! has undercut its request by detailing the ease with which such information can be obtained by anyone -- including Yahoo! (Complaint, paragraph 50). Accordingly, the panel denies this Yahoo! request.

With respect to the request for transfer of the 37 YAHOO! Formative Domain Names, the Panel decides that Yahoo! has carried its burden of proving: (a) each of the 37 domain names in issue here is identical to or confusingly similar to the Yahoo! marks, (b) Respondents have no rights and no legitimate interests in respect of any of the 37 domain names in issue, and (c) each domain name in issue has been registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondents.

Accordingly, the Panel requires that the registration of each of the 37 YAHOO! Formative Domain Names listed at page 2 of this Decision be transferred to Yahoo!.

 


 

David W. Plant
Presiding Panelist

Dated: June 14, 2000


 

Footnotes:

1. On May 19, 2000, the Center appointed Mr. Plant as single panelist in Yahoo! Inc. v. David Ashby, Case No. D2000-0241.

 

Источник информации: http://www.internet-law.ru/intlaw/udrp/2000/d2000-0273.html

 

Добавить эту страницу в закладки:

 


 

Произвольная ссылка:

Разработка сайта
ArtStyle Group

Уважаемый посетитель!

Вы, кажется, используете блокировщик рекламы.

Пожалуйста, отключите его для корректной работы сайта.