Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2017-0155 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, March 12, 2017 (case AARP v. Anthony Lauberth)

Resolution DateMarch 12, 2017
Issuing OrganizationWIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
DecisionTransfer
DominioGeneric Domains

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AARP v. Anthony Lauberth

Case No. D2017-0155

1. The Parties

Complainant is AARP of Washington, D.C., United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

Respondent is Anthony Lauberth of Laguna Niguel, California, United States.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names [aarphelp.com] and [aarprewards.com] (the “Disputed Domain Names”) are registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 26, 2017. On January 27, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On January 30, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing Respondent’s 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 31, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 20, 2017. The Response was filed with the Center on February 3, 2017, and confirmed by Respondent as its complete Response on February 18, 2017.

The Center appointed Douglas M. Isenberg as the sole panelist in this matter on February 27, 2017. 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 states that it “is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, social welfare organization that helps people turn their goals and dreams into real possibilities, strengthens communities and fights for the issues that matter most to families – such as health care, employment and income security, and protection from financial abuse”; that “[s]ince its inception in 1958, Complainant has grown and changed dramatically in response to societal changes, while remaining true to its founding principles: [t]o promote independence, dignity and purpose for older persons; [t]o enhance the quality of life for older persons; and [t]o encourage older people ‘To serve, not to be served’”; that it “maintains a membership of nearly 38 million, making it an organization with one of the largest memberships in the United States”; and that “[i]n 2015, Complainant had operating revenues of $1.5 billion (USD) and total assets of nearly $2.4 billion (USD).”

Complainant states, and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of a number of trademark registrations for the mark AARP in the United States, Canada and the European Union, including U.S. Reg. No. 1,046,998 for use in connection with “insurance services-namely, contracting for plans of group health insurance in which its members may participate and administering such programs” (first used in commerce in October 1958; registered on August 24, 1976). These registrations are referred to hereafter as the “AARP Trademark.”

The Disputed Domain Name [aarphelp.com] was created on April 5, 2007, and is being used in connection with a website offering pornographic content. The Disputed Domain Name [aarprewards.com] was created on February 27, 2004, and is being used in connection with a website offering the domain name for sale.

According to copies of communications between the parties included in the Complaint, Complainant contacted Respondent about the Disputed Domain Name...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT