State of Wisconsin, Department of Administration v. High Traffic Pro-Life Domains only $999

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