WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

King Street Capital Management, L.P. v. Sean William

Case No. D2011-2130

1. The Parties

Complainant is King Street Capital Management, L.P., New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Kenyon & Kenyon, United States of America.

Respondent is Sean William, New York, New York, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <kingstreettrading.info> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 1&1 Internet AG.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 5, 2011. On December 6, 2011, the Center transmitted by e-mail to 1&1 Internet AG. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 7, 2011, 1&1 Internet AG transmitted by e-mail to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 15, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 4, 2012. Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 11, 2012. Several e-mail communications were received from Respondent after the Notification of Respondent’s default.

The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on January 26, 2012. 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.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is a financial services firm that provides financial and investment management services under the marks KING STREET and KING STREET CAPITAL. Complainant has used these marks in commerce since 1995, and has registered these marks in the United States and in several other jurisdictions.

Respondent registered the Domain Name on December 29, 2010. The Domain Name resolves to a website that prominently displays advertisements for goods and services related to the financial industry, such as stock trading software and market analytics services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The salient facts of this case are as set forth in the previous section. Complainant contends that all three elements required under the Policy have been met and that he is entitled to a transfer of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to any of Complainant’s contentions. The Center received several informal emails after the Notification of respondent’s Default.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) 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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant clearly has rights in the marks KING STREET and KING STREET CAPITAL through extensive use and registration. The Domain Name wholly incorporates the KING STREET mark and appends thereto the descriptive word “trading.” This word figures prominently in the world of financial and investment services, which is Complainant’s core business protected by the KING STREET mark. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the addition of the term “trading” does not diminish the confusing similarity between the mark and the Domain Name. If anything, the word “trading” serves to underscore a (false) relationship between Complainant’s mark and the Domain Name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you [Respondent] are 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.

Complainant bears the burden of proof on the “rights or legitimate interests” issue (as he does for all three elements of the Policy). Louis de Bernieres v. Old Barn Studios Limited, WIPO Case No. D2001-0122. Nevertheless, the panel in PepsiCo, Inc. v. Amilcar Perez Lista d/b/a Cybersor, WIPO Case No. D2003-0174, correctly observed: “A respondent is not obliged to participate in a domain name dispute proceeding, but its failure to do so can lead to an administrative panel accepting as true the assertions of a complainant which are not unreasonable and leaves the respondent open to the legitimate inferences which flow from the information provided by a complainant.” As noted above, Respondent did not file a Response and hence did not effectively rebut any of Complainant’s assertions.

There is no evidence that Respondent has ever been authorized to use Complainant’s mark in a domain name or otherwise. Likewise, there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name, or has made substantial preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith” :

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or

(ii) that Respondent has 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other on line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

The Panel finds that Respondent is in “bad faith” under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds on this record that Respondent more likely than not had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name, given the scope of the financial products and services offered at Respondent’s website. These commercial offerings run afoul of paragraph 4(b)(iv), which recognizes bad faith where, as here, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s site and the goods and services offered there.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

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 <kingstreettrading.info> be transferred to Complainant.

Robert A. Badgley
Sole Panelist
Date: January 30, 2012