InfoSpace, Inc. v. Dominion Hill, Inc.

WIPO Arbitration

and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE

PANEL DECISION

Infospace,

Inc. v. Dominion Hill Inc

Case Nos.

D2000-1475 and D2000-1477

Because the parties to

these two cases are identical, and because the domain names in respect of which

the complaints have been made are substantively similar, the Panelist has decided

to incorporate both decisions into a single document to avoid unnecessary duplication.

This decision has been taken under Rule 10(a) of the Rules, in conjunction with

an analogous interpretation of Rule 10(e).

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Infospace

of 601-108th Ave. N.E., Suite 1200, Bellevue, WA 98004, USA ("Infospace").

The Respondent is Dominion

Hill Inc of Sent Nicholas, PO Box 54277, Kanika Complex, Flat 705, Limassol,

Cyprus 3101 ("Dominion Hill").

2. The Domain Names

and Registrar

The domain names at issue

in Case No. 1475 are infosspace.com, ynfospace.com, inffospace.com, infospaace.com,

infosppace.com.

The domain names at issue

in Case 1477 are innfospace.com and infospacce.com.

In both cases the Registrar

is Tucows.com Inc. of Registrant Affairs Office, 96 Mowat Avenue, Toronto, Ontario

M6K 3M1, Canada.

3. Procedural History

In Case 1475 the complaint

was submitted on October 28, 2000, and duly despatched by the WIPO Arbitration

and Mediation Center to the Respondent. No response was received, so a notification

of default was submitted on December 7, 2000. In the absence of any further

communication, the Panelist was duly appointed on January 10, 2000.

All payments appear to

have been duly made by Infospace.

The Panelist has submitted

a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.

The language of the proceeding is English.

In relation to Case 1477,

the Complaint was also submitted on October 28, 2000, and followed precisely

the same administrative path with a default notice filed on December 7,

2000. Once again, Infospace appear to have paid all appropriate fees and the

Panelist was duly appointed on January 10, 2001.

4. Factual Background

Infospace is a substantial

US corporation dealing in the provision of computer software and services. It

is the registered proprietor of a number of US trademarks, and other applications

for the mark "INFOSPACE" as well as the mark "POWERED BY INFOSPACE".

Further, the Complainant is the owner of the domain name "Infospace.com".

The domain names of which

complaint is made in Cases 1475 and 1477 were registered between May 24, 2000,

and June 7, 2000, well after the registration of the trademarks, and the acquisition

of the domain name "Infospace.com" by Infospace.

All the seven domain names

at issue in the two cases resolve to the online gambling site entitled "Netsmear.com"

and "www.casino-on-net.com".

The complaint was duly

filed as indicated in Section 3 above.

5. The Parties’ Contentions

Infospace contends that

the domain names in question are identical or confusingly similar to its trade

marks and trading names; that Dominion Hill has no right or legitimate interest

in respect of the domain names; and that the domain names have been registered

and are being used in bad faith.

Infospace asserts that

the identical nature of the domain names is clear from the well-known trading

style of their business, and the portfolio of trademark registrations. They

point to the fact that the minor alphanumeric changes which have been made in

order to create different domain names are immaterial in terms of their difference

from the Infospace trademarks, and the Infospace.com website.

Infospace contends that

Dominion Hill has no legitimate interest in the names. It asserts that Dominion

Hill owns no valid intellectual property rights in the names and is not commonly

known by those names, as they in fact resolve to another website, presumably

owned by Dominion Hill. Infospace contends that Dominion Hill has no relationship

with Infospace itself, and is not authorized by the company to use the Infospace

name or mark or any variations thereof.

Finally, Infospace contends

that the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. To support

this assertion, it points out that the name Infospace is well known, and that

the intentions of Dominion Hill are perfectly apparent from the fact that it

has merely made single letter alterations to the name in the registration of

the seven domain names. The intention, in the assertion of Infospace, was to

redirect consumers looking for Infospace to the Dominion Hill website in order

to increase traffic and to profit from that. That would be contrary to paragraph

4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.

There has been no response

by Dominion Hill to either of the complaints, notwithstanding the fact that

delivery to its noted email address has clearly been made.

6. Panel Findings

Under paragraph 4 of the

UDRP the Complainant’s burden is to prove in relation to the complaint that:

(i) the domain name

at issue 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 interest in respect of the domain name;

(iii) the domain name

has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant must prove

that each of these three elements is present in order to

make out a successful case.

The first part of the test

is simple and straightforward. The seven domain names at issue all fall within

one letter of the registered trademarks and registered domain name belonging

to Infospace. The manner in which the seven sites have been devised, with deliberate

minor mis-spelling, using a different letter in each case is in itself evidence

of an attempt to come as close as possible to the existing registered domain

name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first limb of the test.

Infospace have asserted

that there is no evidence of Dominion Hill trading or being known by any of

the seven names which it has registered, and there is evidence that those names

are merely being used to divert users to its other websites. The way in which

the UDRP guidelines have been drawn up suggests that the burden of proof following

even such a basic assertion passes to the Respondent to satisfy the Panelist

that it does have a right or legitimate interest. In the absence of any submission

from the Respondent, Dominion Hill, the Panelist is satisfied that the second

limb of the test is also satisfactorily made out.

The question of bad faith

is the last to be considered and is usually the most difficult. However, in

this case, given the nature of the seven domain names, which have been registered,

and the clear intention of Dominion Hill to use those names in order to divert

people who might otherwise visit the legitimate Infospace site to its gambling

sites, bad faith is demonstrated quite clearly.

Paragraph 4 of the UDRP

helpfully provides examples of circumstances which, if found by the Panel to

be present, are evidence of registration and use in bad faith. In this case,

paragraph 4(b)(iv) is clearly in evidence. That indicates that "by using

the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for

commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other on-line location by creating

a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks".

Accordingly, Infospace

has satisfied its requirements in order to make out a full case under the UDRP.

7. Decision

In the light of the foregoing,

the Panel decides that each of the seven domain names registered by Dominion

Hill in the Cases 1475 and 1477 is identical or substantially similar to the

registered trade marks and trading names of Infospace; that Dominion Hill has

no rights or legitimate interests in respect of these domain names; and that

the domain names in issue were registered and used in bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel

requires that the registration of the domain names in issue be transferred to

Infospace.

Gordon D

Harris

Sole Panelist

Dated: January

22, 2001

More cases by this complainant

• InfoSpace, Inc. — D2012-0519 · Terminated
• InfoSpace, Inc. v. Alexander Bobov/ WhoisGuard — D2011-1956 · infospaceonline.com · Transfer · 30 Jan 2012
• InfoSpace, Inc. v. Domains Secured, LLC — D2011-1529 · mydogpile.com · Transfer · 31 Oct 2011
• InfoSpace, Inc. v. DeCroux Corporation (David Lee) — D2011-1482 · dogpileit.com, dogpileshopping.com · Transfer · 14 Nov 2011
• InfoSpace, Inc. v. Telos Chamir — D2011-1256 · web-crawler.info · Transfer · 17 Sept 2011
• InfoSpace, Inc. v. Aleksei Arhipov — D2011-1255 · allwebcrawler.com · Transfer · 24 Aug 2011