Florida Time Clock, Inc v. Time Systems c/o Barry Rubin
 

Florida Time Clock, Inc. v Time Systems c/o Barry Rubin

Bottom Line:  Barry Rubin, former punch clock salesman for Florida Time Clock, Inc., lost.  

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as Respondent is using the  domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website.  See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto, FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website).

 

Moreover, the Panel finds that Respondent’s  domain name causes Internet users to mistakenly believe that the disputed domain name is affiliated with Complainant.  Complainant asserts that the initial user confusion that the domain name causes is evidence that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the  domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.