Infospace Canada

							                 WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

                        ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

                           Infospace, Inc. v. Dominion Hill Inc

                          Case Nos. D2000-1475 and D2000-1477




Because the parties to these two cases are identical, and because the domain names in respect
of which the complaints have been made are substantively similar, the Panelist has decided to
incorporate both decisions into a single document to avoid unnecessary duplication. This
decision has been taken under Rule 10(a) of the Rules, in conjunction with an analogous
interpretation of Rule 10(e).


1.   The Parties

     The Complainant is Infospace of 601-108th Ave. N.E., Suite 1200, Bellevue, WA
     98004, USA (“Infospace”).

     The Respondent is Dominion Hill Inc of Sent Nicholas, PO Box 54277, Kanika
     Complex, Flat 705, Limassol, Cyprus 3101 (“Dominion Hill”).


2.   The Domain Names and Registrar

     The domain names at issue in Case No. 1475 are infosspace.com, ynfospace.com,
     inffospace.com, infospaace.com, infosppace.com.

     The domain names at issue in Case 1477 are innfospace.com and infospacce.com.

     In both cases the Registrar is Tucows.com Inc. of Registrant Affairs Office, 96 Mowat
     Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6K 3M1, Canada.


3.   Procedural History

     In Case 1475 the complaint was submitted on October 28, 2000, and duly despatched
     by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center to the Respondent. No response was
     received, so a notification of default was submitted on December 7, 2000. In the

                                           page 1
     absence of any further communication, the Panelist was duly appointed on January 10,
     2000.

     All payments appear to have been duly made by Infospace.

     The Panelist has submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality
     and Independence. The language of the proceeding is English.

     In relation to Case 1477, the Complaint was also submitted on October 28, 2000, and
     followed precisely the same administrative path with a default notice filed on
     December 7, 2000. Once again, Infospace appear to have paid all appropriate fees and
     the Panelist was duly appointed on January 10, 2001.


4.   Factual Background

     Infospace is a substantial US corporation dealing in the provision of computer software
     and services. It is the registered proprietor of a number of US trademarks, and other
     applications for the mark “INFOSPACE” as well as the mark “POWERED BY
     INFOSPACE”. Further, the Complainant is the owner of the domain name
     “Infospace.com”.

     The domain names of which complaint is made in Cases 1475 and 1477 were registered
     between May 24, 2000, and June 7, 2000, well after the registration of the trademarks,
     and the acquisition of the domain name “Infospace.com” by Infospace.

     All the seven domain names at issue in the two cases resolve to the online gambling site
     entitled “Netsmear.com” and “www.casino-on-net.com”.

     The complaint was duly filed as indicated in Section 3 above.


5.   The Parties’ Contentions

     Infospace contends that the domain names in question are identical or confusingly
     similar to its trade marks and trading names; that Dominion Hill has no right or
     legitimate interest in respect of the domain names; and that the domain names have
     been registered and are being used in bad faith.

     Infospace asserts that the identical nature of the domain names is clear from the well-
     known trading style of their business, and the portfolio of trademark registrations. They
     point to the fact that the minor alphanumeric changes which have been made in order to
     create different domain names are immaterial in terms of their difference from the
     Infospace trademarks, and the Infospace.com website.

     Infospace contends that Dominion Hill has no legitimate interest in the names. It
     asserts that Dominion Hill owns no valid intellectual property rights in the names and is
     not commonly known by those names, as they in fact resolve to another website,
     presumably owned by Dominion Hill. Infospace contends that Dominion Hill has no
     relationship with Infospace itself, and is not authorized by the company to use the
     Infospace name or mark or any variations thereof.

                                           page 2
     Finally, Infospace contends that the domain names were registered and are being used
     in bad faith. To support this assertion, it points out that the name Infospace is well
     known, and that the intentions of Dominion Hill are perfectly apparent from the fact
     that it has merely made single letter alterations to the name in the registration of the
     seven domain names. The intention, in the assertion of Infospace, was to redirect
     consumers looking for Infospace to the Dominion Hill website in order to increase
     traffic and to profit from that. That would be contrary to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the
     UDRP.

     There has been no response by Dominion Hill to either of the complaints,
     notwithstanding the fact that delivery to its noted email address has clearly been made.


6.   Panel Findings

     Under paragraph 4 of the UDRP the Complainant’s burden is to prove in relation to the
     complaint that:

           (i)    the domain name at issue 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 interest in respect of the domain
                  name;

           (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

     The Complainant must prove that each of these three elements is present in order to
     make out a successful case.

     The first part of the test is simple and straightforward. The seven domain names at
     issue all fall within one letter of the registered trademarks and registered domain name
     belonging to Infospace. The manner in which the seven sites have been devised, with
     deliberate minor mis-spelling, using a different letter in each case is in itself evidence of
     an attempt to come as close as possible to the existing registered domain name.
     Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first limb of the test.

     Infospace have asserted that there is no evidence of Dominion Hill trading or being
     known by any of the seven names which it has registered, and there is evidence that
     those names are merely being used to divert users to its other websites. The way in
     which the UDRP guidelines have been drawn up suggests that the burden of proof
     following even such a basic assertion passes to the Respondent to satisfy the Panelist
     that it does have a right or legitimate interest. In the absence of any submission from
     the Respondent, Dominion Hill, the Panelist is satisfied that the second limb of the test
     is also satisfactorily made out.

     The question of bad faith is the last to be considered and is usually the most difficult.
     However, in this case, given the nature of the seven domain names, which have been
     registered, and the clear intention of Dominion Hill to use those names in order to
     divert people who might otherwise visit the legitimate Infospace site to its gambling
     sites, bad faith is demonstrated quite clearly.



                                             page 3
     Paragraph 4 of the UDRP helpfully provides examples of circumstances which, if found
     by the Panel to be present, are evidence of registration and use in bad faith. In this case,
     paragraph 4(b)(iv) is clearly in evidence. That indicates that “by using the domain
     name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,
     Internet users to a website or other on-line location by creating a likelihood of
     confusion with the Complainant’s marks”.

     Accordingly, Infospace has satisfied its requirements in order to make out a full case
     under the UDRP.


7.   Decision

     In the light of the foregoing, the Panel decides that each of the seven domain names
     registered by Dominion Hill in the Cases 1475 and 1477 is identical or substantially
     similar to the registered trade marks and trading names of Infospace; that Dominion
     Hill has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of these domain names; and that the
     domain names in issue were registered and used in bad faith.

     Accordingly, the Panel requires that the registration of the domain names in issue be
     transferred to Infospace.




                                       Gordon D Harris
                                        Sole Panelist

                                  Dated: January 22, 2001




                                            page 4