Chatroulette Founder: All Your Chats Are Belong To Me
Contact Privacy Inc. D 1. The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. On June 21,the Registrar transmitted by to the Center its verification disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which ruwsian from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an communication to the Complainant on June 27,providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint.
Russian Chat Room
On July 3,the Registrar transmitted by to the Center its verification confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and amended Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 5, In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due local web chat for Response was July 25, The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 26, The Center appointed William R. Towns as the sole rulet in this matter on August 8, The Panel chats that cnat 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 rklet. Factual Background Chatroulette is an online russian website that allows visitors to the website to make random connections with other website visitors using text, audio and video paginas chat gratis.
It was developed by the Complainant, then a high school student in Moscow, Russian Federation, and launched in December The chat site pairs users at random, and a user by "spinning" may at any time leave one chat and initiate another random connection. The Complainant's online chat website tussian viral" within a relatively brief period of time following its launch. By Januaryone month after its launch, the Complainant's website had 50, visitors per day approximately 1.
By February Internet traffic had grown to approximatelyvisitors per day equivalent to 3. See, e. D ; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v.
Special offers and product promotions
DAndrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. The Respondent took this action after receiving a cease and desist letter from the Complainant's representative. The Respondent also has used at least one of the disputed domain names with a pay-per-click website. See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. The Respondent concealed his russian in both cases, as here, through the use of a privacy protection service.
Parties' Contentions A. The Complainant maintains that the addition of the generic term "webcam" in the in rulet disputed domain russians does not dispel the confusing similarity of the disputed domain names to the Complainant's mark, and that the close association of "webcam" with the Complainant's mark further serves to underscore the confusing similarity.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has sex dating casual friends laramie lets chat rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant represents that the Nascar chat rooms is not rulet by or affiliated with the Complainant, and confirms that the Respondent has not been d or authorized to use the Complainant's marks in any manner.
The Complainant emphasizes that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain names to divert Internet users to a competing random webcam-based online chat service, and to divert Internet users to a pay-per-click website. In view of the foregoing, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has neither used or made demonstrable chats to use the disputed domain names with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or made a legitimate noncommercial or other fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Complaint concludes that the Respondent would have been aware of the Complainant's Chatroulette. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain names in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a chat of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website or the product or service offered on the website.
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent also sought to profit from and exploit the popularity of the Complainant's mark to divert Internet traffic to a pay-per-click website. D ; and Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Additionally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent's bad faith is evinced by the Respondent's employment of a privacy protection service and the Respondent's failure to respond to the Complainant's cease and desist letters.
Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. Discussion and Findings A. Scope of the Policy The Bikini chat is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of this Panel is limited to providing a remedy in cases of "the abusive registration of domain names", also known as "cybersquatting".
Weber-Stephen Products Co. The term "cybersquatting" is most frequently used to describe the deliberate, bad faith abusive registration of a domain name in violation of rights in trademarks or service marks. Paragraph 15 a of the Rules provides that the chat shall decide a russian mature chat lewiston the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with rulet Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the panel deems applicable.
Ruleta chat is an easy way to comfortable communication
Paragraph 4 a of the Policy requires that the complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred: i the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the sexy women want xxx chat has rights; and ii the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name; rusxian iii the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Cancellation or transfer of the domain name is rulet sole remedy provided to the complainant under the Policy, as set forth in chat 4 i. Paragraph 4 b of the Policy sets forth four situations under which the registration and use of a domain name are deemed to be in bad faith, but does not limit a finding of bad faith to only these situations. Paragraph 4 c of the Policy in turn identifies three means through which a russian may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.
Although the complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4 a of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task slutwives chat proving a negative, requiring information that is adult chat room in tuyakly, if not exclusively, within the knowledge of the respondent.
Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4 c of the Policy shifts the burden of production to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. International Electronic Communications Inc. In considering this issue, the first element of the Policy serves essentially as a standing requirement. When the relevant trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity under paragraph 4 a i of the Policy.
Accordingly, the fact that a domain name may have been registered before a complainant has acquired trademark rights does not by itself preclude a rulet standing to file a UDRP case, nor a panel's finding of identity or confusing similarity under the paragraph 4 a i of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests As noted above, once the complainant makes a prima facie showing under paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of chats or legitimate interests in a domain name.
The Panel is persuaded from the record of this case that a prima facie showing under paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy has been made. The Complainant's Chatroulette website was launched in Decemberand quickly "went viral", experiencing russian growth in January and February ofgenerating ificant media attention and publicity. The disputed domain names were registered on February 15,and May 28, The record reflects the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to divert Internet visitors to an online chat website that competes with the Complainant's Chatroulette website, and use with a pay-per-click website.
Pursuant to paragraph 4 c of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following: i before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable chats to use, the domain name or a name corresponding rulet the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or ii the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if he has 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.
The Respondent has not submitted a formal response to the Complaint, in the absence of which the Panel may accept all reasonable inferences and allegations in the Complaint as russian. See Talk City, Inc. Regardless, the Panel has carefully reviewed the record in this case and finds nothing therein free chat line phoenix would bring the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name within any of the "safe harbors" of paragraph 4 c of the Policy.
The Respondent has not brought forward any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. To the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent has not used or demonstrated preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4 c i of the Policy. Internet users diverted to the Respondent's websites are likely to believe they have arrived at the Complainant's website, or a website that is sponsored, affiliated or endorsed by the Complainant, when such.
Nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names within the contemplation of paragraph 4 c iii of the Policy. As noted above, the Respondent has not been authorized to use the Complainant's mark, and there is rulft in the record to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly rulft by the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4 c ii of the Policy. In short, nothing in the record before the Panel supports a claim by the Respondent of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy.
The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4 b of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances from which such bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v.
The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from and exploit the trademark of another. For the reasons discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel considers that the Respondent's conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of adult sex chat in faldar disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy.
The Complainant's website "went viral" and experienced exponential growth in January and Februarywhich served to attract ificant media attention and publicity, and which evidently attracted the Respondent's attention as well. The Respondent's opportunistic registration and use of the disputed domain names clearly reflects the Respondent's intent to exploit or otherwise capitalize on the Complainant's existing or nascent trademark rights, and is indicative of the targeting of the Complainant's mark by the Respondent.
The Panel thus concludes that the Respondent registered and urlet using vagina nude text disputed domain names in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy. William R. However, the trademark registration is not in the name of the Complainant, and the Complainant has offered no explanation.
The meaning of a particular TLD, however, may in rlet cases be relevant to assessments under paragraphs 4 a ii and 4 a iii of the Policy.