The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc. v. Modern Limited – Cayman Islands

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc. v. Modern Limited, Cayman Islands

Case No. D2003-0305

1. The Parties

The Complainant is The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc., Minnesota, United States of America, represented by Killworth, Gottman, Hagan & Schaeff, L.L.P of United States of America.

The Respondent is Modern Limited, Cayman Islands, Georgetown Cayman Islands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is <sportsmenguide.com>, which is registered with Address Creation.

3. Procedural History

3.1 Submission of the Complaint

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center"), in electronic format, on April 17, 2003. The original of the Complaint together with the 11 Annexes were submitted in hard copy on April 22, 2003.

3.2 Confirmation of registration details

On April 24, 2003, the Center transmitted by email, to Address Creation a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. The request was sent to the email address displayed on the Registrar’s website – "support@addresscreation.com." The Registrar did not send the required verification, even though a reminder was sent to them. Due to the lack of reply from the Registrar, the Center proceeded with the case using the information provided on the corresponding Registrars Whois data. This information was obtained on June 3, 2003. The information obtained by the Center, from the corresponding Registrars Whois data, about the disputed domain name, are identical with those submitted in the Complaint and obtained from the same source on January 23, 2003, and on April 4, 2003. The Panel itself has performed several checks related to the disputed domain name, from the same source - the corresponding Registrars Whois data - and acknowledged that this information obtained during the checks are identical with those obtained by the Center and provided by the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel assumes that the information of the disputed domain name and its Registrant shown in the corresponding Registrars Whois data, are correct, as neither the Respondent or the Registrar contest such information.

3.3 Formal compliance check

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"). As for sending the Complainant to the Respondent and to the Registrar, according to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel presumes that it was done, as neither the Respondent or the Registrar contested it.

The Panel independently determined and agreed with the assessment of the WIPO Center that the Complaint is in formal compliance with the requirements of the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.

3.4 Notification of the Respondent

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), and in the light of the information available (as mentioned in the paragraph 3.2 above), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and of the commencement of the proceedings on May 1, 2003.

The Notification specified, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), May 21, 2003, as the due date for the submission of the Response.

Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules provides that it is the provider’s responsibility to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice of the Respondent. This paragraph further provides that this responsibility is discharged:

- by sending the Complaint to each of the address shown in the Registrar’s Whois database for the domain name holder and the technical and administrative contact and to the address supplied for the Billing contact, and

- by sending the Complaint in electronic form to the respective e-mail addresses, to the postmaster at the domain name and to any address on an active web page to which the domain name resolves, and to any other addresses notified to the sender by Respondent or provided by Complainant.

The Center sent the Notification of the Complaint and Commencement of the Administrative

Procedure, by post, facsimile and by email, to all the addresses shown in the

Registrar’s Whois, as listed for the Respondent Modern Limited – Cayman Islands,

on January 23, 2003, April 16, 2003 and June 3, 2003.

The Panel accepts that in light of the information available WIPO has employed

all means reasonably available to achieve notice to the Respondent of the Complaint.

3.5 Filling a Response

The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified

the Respondent’s default on June 4, 2003.

3.6 Constitution of the administrative Panel

The Center appointed Beatrice Onica Jarka as the Sole Panelist in this matter

on June 4, 2003. 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.

The projected decision date is June 18, 2003.

The Panel finds that, the Administrative Panel was properly constituted and

appointed in accordance with the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.

3.7 Language of the Proceedings

The Panel considers that, according to paragraph 11 of the Rules, the language

of the proceedings is English.

4. Factual Background

According to its website, "www.sportsmansguide.com," the Complainant

is a public company listed on NASDAQ stock exchange, which is in the business

of mail order catalog sales. Its first catalog sale was offered to the public

in 1977. Since at least 1998, through its website the Complainant has offered

online sales services and telephone shop-at-home services, and has provided

links to information resources of interest to outdoorsmen. Goods available through

Complainant’s services include clothing, camping gear, hunting and fishing gear

and other equipment of interest to the outdoorsman.

According to its own assertion, the Complainant currently serves over one million

customers throughout the world.

As results from the search performed by the Panel, the Complainant registered

the domain name <sportsmansguide.com> with Network Solutions on May 11, 1996.

According to the annexes to the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of

four United States federal registrations covering its "THE SPORTSMAN’S

GUIDE" mark:

· U.S. Reg. No. 1,430,664, for THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE, issued February 24, 1987,

covering catalog mail order services;

· U.S. Reg. No. 1,436,014, for THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE and Design, issued

April 7, 1987, covering catalog mail order services;

· U.S. Reg. No. 2,267,142, for THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE, issued August 3, 1999,

covering catalog mail order services, retail store services, and online sales

services; and

· U.S. Reg. No. 2,624,677, for THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE and Design, issued

September 24, 2002, covering catalog, mail-order, online retail and

retail store services, featuring footwear, clothing and accessories, hunting

and shooting accessories, camping and outdoor recreation products, optics, ammunition,

domestics, novelties and collectibles, electronics, furniture, cookware, utensils,

hardware, knives, tools, automotive products, electronics and other consumer

products.Reg. Nos. 1,430,664 and 1,436,014 have become incontestable under the

provisions of U.S. trademark law,

The Complainant is also the owner of a registration for THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE

mark in Canada:

· Canadian Reg. No. TMA 398,067, for THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE, registered

May 8, 1992, covering catalogue mail order services.

The disputed domain name <sportsmenguide.com> has been registered in

the Respondent’s name since November 15, 2002.

Before the said date, the disputed domain name was registered to a Mr. Anthony Peppler

of RealTimeInternet.com.Inc. (as shown in the Annex 7 to the Complaint).

As before November 15, 2002, to the present moment, the disputed

domain name displays a collection of generic keywords, which resolves to websites

associated to each keyword. Each website associated to the keywords contains

a listing and a search "List your site here with ShopFind integrated search

results!", which resolves to another website <shopfind.com> where

the process of getting a website included in the listing is discussed. Among

the generic keywords, one can find words as shopping and clothing, which access

to pages offering on line stores, some of them for products similar with those

of the Complainant.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 27, 2002, and, expires

on May 27, 2004.

On November 14, 2002, the Complainant contacted Mr. Peppler

of RealTimeInternet.com., Inc., requesting the surrender of the disputed domain

name. There was no answer from the side of Mr. Peppler. On November 15, 2002,

the disputed domain name was transferred to the present Respondent, which is

also the Registrant of <shopfind.com>.

On January 23, 2003, the Complainant contacted both the Respondent

and Mr. Peppler regarding the surrender of the disputed domain name. Again

there was no answer from their side.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that:

I. the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks,

as registered at the federal level and as reflected in its own domain name,

the main differences between the Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s

mark are the omission of the final "S" in the term SPORTSMANS and

the substitution of the letter "E" for "A" in MAN.

II. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the

disputed domain name because:

- prior to notice to the Respondent of this dispute, Respondent was not using

the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services,

nor had it made preparations to do so. Instead, the Respondent was using the

domain name to unfairly trade on Complainant’s name and mark, by associating

the domain name with a list of generic words resolving some of them to online

stores offering some of the same types of products Complainant sells.

- the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name or any portion thereof,

nor has it registered the domain name as a trademark.

- Complainant has never assigned, sold or transferred any rights in its THE SPORTSMAN’S

GUIDE marks to Respondent, has not granted Respondent permission to use or register

its mark as a domain name.

- The Respondent is making commercial use of the disputed domain name, with

intent of diverting Internet traffic away from Complainant’s site for its own

commercial gain.

- The "contact" link on the web page accessed by the disputed domain

name, takes one to a page that is identical to the home page for the site.

III. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because

- the disputed domain name was registered by Anthony Peppler of the RealTimeInternet.Com,

which has been involved in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain

names;

- the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is effectively an attempt

to create confusion with Complainant’s mark and domain name, and thereby to

attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for its own commercial gain,

and this results from both clicking through the links to the sites with which

the keywords are connected and from the use of banner advertisements and pop

adds, displayed on the web page accessed by the disputed domain name;

- the transfer of the domain name following Complainant’s initial contact,

and the involvement of RealTimeInternet.Com with the domain name, also suggests

bad faith on the part of the Respondent, especially in connection to the fact

that Respondent has no legitimate interests in the domain name.

B. Respondent

Properly notified according to Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules, the Respondent

did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Substantive elements of the Policy

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to:

"decide a Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted

in accordance with the policy, these rules and any rules and principles of law

that it deems applicable."

The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Policy, is

to show:

A. that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly

similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

and

B. that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of

the domain name; and

C. that the domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent

in bad faith.

Paragraph 5(e) of the Rules instructs the Panel that:

"if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional

circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint."

Further paragraph 14(b) of the Rules instructs the Panel that:

"If a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply

with any provision of, or requirement under, these Rules or any request from

the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences there from as it considers appropriate."

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The record shows that the Complainant holds several trademark registrations

in the mark THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE mark. Also the record shows that the Complainant

has reflected its mark in its own active domain name <sportsmansguide.com>

since at least 1998 (the registration of the domain name shows 1996 as

the date of its creation).

Such registration of the trademark and the reflection of this mark in an active

domain name is conclusive evidence of Complainant's exclusive rights in the

mark for the goods and services listed in the registrations, and displayed on

the Internet. As a result, the validity of Complainant's rights may not be challenged

on the grounds that the mark is merely descriptive. (See, T. Rowe Price Associates,

Inc. v. J A Rich, WIPO Case No. D2001-1044).

Further, there is no indication that SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE is a common generic

term for the class of goods or services provided by the Complainant, mainly

because of the popularity of the Complainant business. An Internet search (as

the Panel conducted) for the words "SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE," which corresponds

to the Complainant mark, resolves to hundreds of addresses which contains references

to the Complainant’s website <sportsmansguide.com>.

As the Complainant contends, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar

to Complainant’s marks "The Sportsman’s Guide" and to its reflection

in the Complainant’s domain name. The main differences between the disputed

domain name and Complainant’s mark is the omission of the final "S"

in the term "sportsmans" and the substitution of the letter "E"

for "A" in "man," do not render the disputed domain name

totally distinctive from the Complainant’s trademark (See, The Sportsman’s

Guide, Inc v. Vipercom, WIPO Case No. D2003-0145,

VeriSign Inc.,v. Venesign C.A., WIPO Case

No.D2000-0303). Even if these differences do not represent misspellings

of the Complainant’s trademark, as the sportsmenguide represents by itself a

descriptive term, the pronunciation of the disputed domain name and of the Complainant’s

trademark is so close that the risk for confusion between the two exists mainly

because the Complainant’s trademark in its website denomination <sportsmansguide.com>

is so popular online.

The Panel does not need to discuss further the differences between the disputed

domain name and the Complainant’s registered trademark, the addition of generic

top-level domains name "com" or the omission of the term "the,"

are without legal significance and certainly do not render the disputed domain

name different from the Complainant’s trademark.

For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain is confusingly

similar to Complainant’s marks "The Sportsman’s Guide."

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides three nonexclusive circumstances that

can demonstrate that the Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in

the domain names:

(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, his/her/its use of,

or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding

to the domain name has been in connection with a bona fide offering of

goods or services; or

(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) have

been commonly known by the domain name, even if he/she/it have acquired no trademark

or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the

domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers

or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has

no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names.

It has become accepted by more and more prior panels, that in the absence of

any Response, once a Complainant establishes a prima facie showing that

none of the three circumstances establishing legitimate interests or rights

apply, the burden of proof on this element shifts to the Respondent to rebut

the showing (See, Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications,

Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270;

Chanel, Inc v. Estco Technology Group, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0413, WIPO Case No. D2003-0145,

The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc v. Vipercom).

Silence of the Respondent might be an indication that he has no rights or legitimate

interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as many prior ICANN panels

have accepted (See, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc v. Adtel Communications, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0115, Singapore Airlines limited v. European Travel Network,

Wipo Case No. D2000-0641; Bayerische

Motoren Weke AG v. Null, WIPO Case No.

D2002-0937).

According to the prior practice of ICANN panels, in the present case, the Panel

finds that the Complainant established a prima facie showing that the

Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel, referring to the Respondent, has no indication whatsoever of any

demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with

a bona fide offering of goods or services, under the <sportsmenguide.com>.

As the Complainant contends, there are only two references to the domain name

on the web page accessed by the disputed domain name. First, the domain name

itself is reproduced at the top of the web page and second, immediately after

the heading "looking for something", there is a statement starting

with "welcome to sportsmenguide.com. We’ve collected a list of sources

sites to help you find exactly what are you looking ….." Neither the

statement nor the reproduction of the disputed domain name can be considered

to be a description of the Respondents' business in connection with a bona

fide offering of goods.

As an Internet user looks for the Complainant’s site, opening the disputed

domain name, he or she cannot find any indication that it is not the website

looked for. More importantly, some of the generic words in the web page accessed

by the disputed domain name link to online stores offering some products that

are similar to those the Complainant sells.

From the contentions of the Complainant, which have not been denied by the

Respondent, it results also that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant

and no permission or consent has been granted to the Respondent to use the "SPORTSMANSGUIDE"

mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating this mark. In the same time,

the Panel cannot find that the Respondent was using the domain name not in the

trademark sense, but in the descriptive sense, describing the types of businesses

listed on the directory page, as prior ICANN panels have recognized that it

may be considered as evidence for legitimate rights and interests of the Respondent

in the disputed domain name. (See, Sweeps Vacuum & Repair Center. Inc

v. Nett Corp Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0031),

because, even if the disputed domain name is a generic name, it is not used

to describe the Respondents website activities. The website operated by the

Respondent could have been hosted at any other address such as "urbanmenguide"

or "worldmenguide," as it has very little (at certain links it offers

for sale products similar to those offered by the Complainant on his site) or

nothing do with the sports skills or sports hobbies of a person.

As the Complainant pointed out in the Complaint, the fact that the "contact"

link on the web page accessed by the disputed domain name, takes one to a page

that is identical to the home page for the site, is sustaining the consideration

that the Respondent does not run a legitimate business through the disputed

domain name.

Moreover, related also to the fact that the Respondent failed to submit a Response

to the Complainants allegations, the Panel will not, in these circumstances,

draw an inference that Respondent, prior to notice of a dispute, made demonstrable

preparations to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offer of

goods or services.

Additionally, the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name <sportsmenguide.com>,

especially because his name does not include any of the words used in the disputed

domain name, and also because the Respondent does not prove that he holds a

trademark "SPORTSMENGUIDE."

Regarding the circumstance provided by paragraph 4(c)(iii), there is no evidence

that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use nor is

making an educational, political satirical or other use of the disputed domain

name that implicates free speech principles or any other recognized category

of fair use.

As it appears to be from the website accessed by the disputed domain name,

the Respondent earns revenues from the several pop-adds and banner advertisements,

which open on the website and also from the <shopfind.com> website associated

with the web page accessed by the disputed domain name, whose registrant is

the Respondent.

For the above said considerations and taking into account the failure of Respondent

to file a Response to the Complainants allegations, the Panel finds that the

Respondent has no rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain

name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) provides

that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found

by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of

a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent have registered or have acquired

the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise

transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner

of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for

valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly

related to the domain name; or

(ii) the Respondent have registered the domain name in order to prevent the

owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding

domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the Respondent have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose

of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the Respondent have intentionally attempted

to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his/her/its website or other

online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's

mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his/her/its

website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.

Even if the Panel is not limited to the circumstances provided by paragraph 4(b),

the Panel considers that the provisions of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy

are applicable in the present case and it shall not go further in analyzing

the remaining circumstances provided by paragraph 4(b).

Considering the Complaint and the evidences submitted in the case, the Panel

finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial

gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a

likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship,

affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service

on its website or location.

The application of the paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, implies in the present

case two elements of equal legal significance:

1) the constructive knowledge of the Respondent of the Complainant’s long standing

trademark at the moment of registration of the disputed domain name;

2) the use of the disputed domain name for commercial gain;

1) Constructive Knowledge

Given that the "constructive knowledge" concept seems to exist in

principle under the US trademark law (see Sterling Inc. v. Sterling Jewelers,

Inc and Domain Traffic, WIPO Case No.

D2002-0772, Biogen, Inc. v. Kel Ellis, KELCO, WIPO

Case No. D2002-0679, Jeffrey S. Thompson d/b/a The Wedding Planner v.

Weddingchannel.com, Inc., WIPO Case No.

D2002–0086), the Panel accepts that such a concept may be generally valid,

especially in the situation when the Complainant and the Registrant of the disputed

domain name are located in the US. The constructive knowledge concept refers

to the fact that a registration at the federal level of a trademark provides

constructive knowledge to any third parties in the US.

Regarding the disputed domain name in the present case, the registration by

the first Registrant - Anthony Peppler of RealTimeInternet.Com, in the circumstances

of paragraph 4b(iv) of the Policy, is obviously valid for the present Respondent,

which maintained with no modification the website under <sportsmenguide.com.>

taken over from the former Registrant.

The registration of the disputed domain name by the former Registrant has been

done in bad faith, and the former Registrant had, as the Complainant contends,

constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel agrees that

the registration of the Complainant’s trademark, and the popularity of this

trademark on Internet, obtained long time before the former Registrant actually

registered the disputed domain name represent evidences as to the constructive

knowledge of the former Registrant.

The present Respondent, which took over the disputed domain name from the former

Registrant, can also be charged with constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s

trademark, at the transfer time, even if it is not a US company as the former

Registrant is.

This is for three reasons:

First, there is an obvious connection between the former Registrant and the

present Respondent which results from the fact that, before and after the transfer

of the disputed domain name, the generic keywords on the website "sportsmenguide"

resolves to the same pay per click engine <shopfind.com>, registered under

the name of the present Respondent, way back in 2001.

Second, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves has remained

the same as it was before the transfer.

Third, the Respondent, who has not filed a Response, even though it was properly

notified, has not denied the connection with the former Registrant, alleged

by the Complainant.

Adding to the three reasons above, the fact that the disputed domain name was

transferred from the former Registrant (which by chance was involved as Respondent

in other similar cases of registration and use of domain names in bad faith)

to the actual Respondent the next day after the Complainant notified the Registrant

on the disputed domain name and asked for surrender, makes a strong case for

proving that constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark, as registered

and as reflected in the Complainant’s domain name existed both at the registration

and at the transfer time of the disputed domain name.

2) The Use of the Disputed Domain Name for Commercial Gain

The Panel agrees that, as the Complainant’s contends and as it appears to be

from the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, the Respondent

earns revenues from the several pop-adds and banner advertisements, which opens

on the website and also from the <shopfind.com> associated website. Such

an inference results also from the fact that the Respondent, who has not filed

a Response, even though it was properly notified, has not denied these allegations

of the Complainant.

The current presentation of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves

is, as results from the evidences submitted by the Complainant, very much the

same with that existing before the transfer from the former Registrant to the

actual Respondent took place.

The constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and of the services

offered under this trademark, from the side of the former Registrant and of

the present Respondent, associated with the use of the disputed domain name

for commercial gain, represent, in the opinion of the Panel, evidence for the

registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain name.

As the Panel has previously accepted, the disputed domain name is descriptive

in nature and one may argue that an Internet user entering <sportsmenguide.com>,

enters the descriptive term. In such situation when the user arrives to the

website featuring the collection of generic keyword with links to a list of

websites associated with each keyword, the user shall not feel that the website

satisfies his need for information related to the general topic (See, Home

Interiors& Gifts, Inc v. Home Interiors, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0010). As stated above the website operated by the Respondent

could have been active under any other domain name such as "urbansmedguide,"

or "worldmeguide," as it is not offering mainly sports product or

sports information for an outdoor person.

Taking into consideration also the popularity of the Complainant trademark

on Internet (an Internet search for the words "SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE,"

which corresponds to the Complainant mark, resolves to hundreds of addresses

which contains references to the Complainant’s website <sportsmansguide.com>)

and the registration by the Complainant of a domain name reproducing its trademark,

way back to 1996, the Panel concludes, that the disputed domain name has been

registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent with the clear intent of

attracting, "for commercial gain, Internet users to his/her/its website

or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's

mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his/her/its

website or location or of a product or service on your website or location."

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, <sportsmenguide.com>

be transferred to the Complainant, as requested.

Beatrice Onica Jarka

Sole Panelist

Dated: June 18, 2003

More cases by this complainant

• The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc. v. JoyRide — D2003-0153 · sportmansguide.com, thesportsmensguide.com · Transfer · 19 May 2003
• The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc. v. Vipercom — D2003-0145 · sportsmanguides.com, sportsmenguides.com · Transfer · 10 Apr 2003
• The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc. v. Damir Kruzicevic — D2002-1127 · sportsmanguide.com · Transfer · 23 Jan 2003
• The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc. v. CostNet Domain Manager — D2002-1126 · sportmanguide.com · Transfer · 23 Jan 2003
• The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc. v. Lorna Kang — D2002-1121 · thesportsmanguide.com · Transfer · 20 Jan 2003
• The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc. v. Asia Ventures, Inc. — D2002-1116 · sportmensguide.com · Transfer · 20 Jan 2003