In the recent domain dispute decision of The Weather Channel, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc. (WIPO D2009-0548, June 23, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.weatherchannelkids.com. The Weather Channel has provided a cable network since 1982 and maintain two relevant web sites at www.weather.com and www.theweatherchannelkids.com Complainant submitted evidence that it has provided features on its web site for children since at least 2002 and created another domain www.weatherclassroom.com in 2003. Respondent was using the disputed domain to redirect viewers to www.porntube.com.

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant has the burden of proving the following: (i) That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) That the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (ii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the Panel noted that the domain only differed from Complainant’s mark in that it also added the generic words “the” and “kids” making it nearly identical to the mark. The Panel found Complainant satisfied this element.

In the second element the Panel noted that Complainant did not authorize Respondent to use the mark THE WEATHER CHANNEL. Additionally, the Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent failed to file a response thus failing to discharge the evidentiary burden which shifted after Complainant proved a prima facie case.

Moving to the third element, bad faith, the Panel noted that Respondent must have been aware of Complainant’s mark due to its worldwide recognition. The Panel further explained:

The Respondent has offered no reason for its choice of the Domain Name, and there is no apparent connection between the three words which constitute the Domain Name and the use of the Domain Name for links to pornography websites. Furthermore, the evidence establishes that the Respondent has in the past registered domain names for the bad faith purpose of trading off trademark owners’ goodwill in their marks.

As a result, the Panel found Complainant proved all elements and agreed to TRANSFER the disputed domain.