Manila Industries
From Spamhuntress
Domain shark
Buys up lapsed domains. Uses domain parking program for income.
(Referrer spam for a domain owned by Manila Industries was sighted in the past, up to around January 2006.)
For those who have lost domains to Manila Industries, they don't seem to hold on to domains no matter what. Give us reports about what it takes for them to give up a domain (is it enough to e-mail them, or do you have to file a domain dispute?)
Contents |
Updated Company Contact Information
November 29, 2006. The law firm Gregory H. Guillot, PC has listed Manila Industries, Inc as one of his clients.
By guest August 19, 2006: In speaking with someone at Manila Industries named Jill, who thought I was a prospective job candidate for the legal department (with extensive trademark experience, as she requested), I was provided the following contact information.
- Comment: Jill says the information was obtained fraudulently, by "pretext e-mail" from Excite. So the original poster lied - there was no job vacancy. --Spamhuntress 04:47, 22 Sep 2006 (CDT)
- Comment on comment: Anonymous poster posted on the talk page and showed us a want ad from Jill. I can verify that's the same Jill Johnson's e-mail address. The edition of that newsletter is September 2005, so how come they were still interested in filling that position? --Spamhuntress 17:07, 26 Sep 2006 (CDT)
- Jill Johnson
- Manila Industries
- 714-920-9883 <<8-22 730pm PDT Update: Calling this number reaches a female who claims it was incorrectly listed>>
(Update from Original Poster: I called Jill from Manila Industries at that number before I listed it, and she told me that there was nothing I could do about my stolen domain. When I told her I was going to post her number to a site with other similarly robbed people, she said I'd have 'problems' if I did, and then said she would simply deny working for Manila. If you call 949-743-1697, the number Manila uses for domain registration, you get a prerecorded message of an English-speaking female with a somewhat unique-sounding American accent. Note that this voice is nearly identical to the voice on Jill's answering machine, exactly matching tone and accent.)
60 Palatine 112 irvine,ca 92612
3845 S bristol 628 Santa Ana, CA 92704
A Google Groups post from Stuart A. Bronstein mentioned:
According to the California Secretary of State, their address is 23312 EAGLE RIDGE MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692
Their agent for service of process is RAJIV JAIN 15615 ALTON PKWY SUITE 450 IRVINE, CA 92618
--Spamhuntress 11:58, 14 Sep 2006 (CDT)
News
Second attempt to remove the contact information, and replace it with another phone number. Same location as last time. Check diffs for IP address. --Spamhuntress 15:49, 19 Sep 2006 (CDT)
Someone from Irvine, California just removed the updated contact information. My guess is that's someone from Manila itself. --Spamhuntress 14:43, 22 Aug 2006 (CDT)
Update: There has been some legal action (arbitration) regarding domains that infringe on brand names. It's possible they use that as a way to get people to land on their pages, not just spamming.
The domain I found in my logs, is
- jaja-jak-globusy.com
- It was registered 2005-06-09.
Spambots
The information below is old. I haven't seen any confirmed sightings of this referrer spammer in a long time. What's also odd, is that the referrer spam continued long after Manila Industries removed any content from the website. It's of course possible that it was revenge spam. Anyway, they no longer appear to spam.
- 70.85.116.229
- 70.84.128.244 (new)
- 70.85.193.178
- Both at The Planet
- The bot will make a first pass doing a HEAD with this user agent:
- LWP::Simple/5.803
- Then come back with this:
- Mozilla/4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
- Doing the actual referrer spamming.
- I've also seen this user agent do GET requests without a referrer:
- Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
Have a look at 70.85.193.178 as a website. Talk about baring it all...
Webserver IP Address:
- 66.118.136.67 (ns1.rentalqueue.com)
- That's on sagonet.com, which offers colocation and dedicated among other things. Abuse address: abuse at sagonet.com
Whois:
Manila Industries, Inc. Attn: 7713 - 145 3522 2nd Floor Rm 2 AL 11 B Lard Prao Road, Klongchan Bangkapi Bangkok 10240 Phone: (66) 2-734-9741 xt 7713 Email: manilaindustries@excite.com th
Newer whois:
Manila Industries, Inc. 3843 S. Bristol St. #628 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Phone: 949-743-1697 Email: manilaindustries@excite.com US
Payoff:
- Here's where it gets complicated. The payoff is Google Adsense. But not as a regular publisher. Due to the way the URL's are constructed, it appears to be part of the domainpark program. The ID is:
- dp-netsphere or ca-dp-netsphere or ca-dp-netsphere_xml
- Depending on how these ID's are constructed. Comparing with Sedo, it's probably dp-netsphere.
Now, this is meant for domain parking. I guess you could argue that the owner of these domains is doing just that. BUT, there's a wrinkle. Domains that are parked would not and should not be spamvertized. After all, they're just sitting there.
Nah, I think the owner of the pages just decided this was a great way to earn money, and were acquired just for this purpose. Not exactly what the program was meant for. It looks like a scraper directory to a tee, no sign of domain parking, before you get into the CODE, and check out what the Adsense is actually doing. So I think this is a clever way to misuse the Adsense program. An Adsense manager may think it's OK after a cursory inspection, but poke beneath the surface, and you'll see something's wrong.
Posts about them:
More Link spammer pages
Arbitration
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC. IS THE FOLLOWING:
The information displayed here is current as of "MAR 24, 2006" and is updated weekly. It is not a complete or certified record of the Corporation. Corporation MANILA INDUSTRIES INC. Number: C2731598 Date Filed: 1/13/2005 Status: active Jurisdiction: California Address 23312 EAGLE RIDGE MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 Agent for Service of Process RAJIV JAIN 30481 MARBELLA VISTA SAN JUAN CAPRISTRANO, CA 92675
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC. IS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ENTITY THAT WAS IN ARBITRATION FOR REGISTERING "SMITHSONIAN.COM" FOR THE PURPOSES OF LINKING TO VARIOUS UNRELATED COMMERCIAL WEBSITES. THE COMPLAINTANT WON AND SMITHSONIAN.COM WAS RELEASED TO THE RIGHTFUL TRADEMARK HOLDER, THE SMITHSONIAN.
This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/436792.htm as retrieved on Jan 30, 2006 05:04:12 GMT. G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web. The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting. This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:MsMwnAj5btEJ:www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/436792.htm+%2230481+MARBELLA+VISTA%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. These search terms have been highlighted: 30481 marbella vista
national arbitration forum
DECISION
Smithsonian Institution v. Manish Aggarwal
Claim Number: FA0503000436792
PARTIES
Complainant is Smithsonian Institution (“Complainantâ€), represented by Scott D Bolden, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, 1100 L Street Room 11118, Washington, DC 20530. Respondent is Manish Aggarwal (“Respondentâ€), represented by Rajiv Jain, 30481 Marbella Vista, San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92675.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <smithsonian.com>, registered with Address Creation.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 8, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 14, 2005.
On March 18, 2005, Address Creation confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <smithsonian.com> is registered with Address Creation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Address Creation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Address Creation registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On March 21, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 11, 2005 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@smithsonian.com by e-mail.
Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 15, 2005 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <smithsonian.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s SMITHSONIAN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <smithsonian.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <smithsonian.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Smithsonian Institution, is a trust instrumentality of the United States, incorporated by Act of Congress in 1846, whose mission is “the increase and diffusion of knowledge.†20 U.S.C. § 41, et seq.
Complainant is the world’s largest museum and research complex. Complainant maintains 16 different museums, is affiliated with 129 other museums and manages 7 research centers.
Complainant has used the SMITHSONIAN mark in commerce to identify its museum services for over 150 years. Complainant has registered the SMITHSONIAN mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTOâ€) (Reg. No. 1,003,626 issued January 28, 1975).
Respondent registered the <smithsonian.com> domain name on April 4, 2001. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a search engine website that features links to various unrelated commercial websites.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established rights in the SMITHSONIAN mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO and through continuous use of the mark in commerce for over 150 years. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.â€); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that successful trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office creates a presumption of rights in a mark).
Respondent’s <smithsonian.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s SMITHSONIAN mark. The addition of the generic top-level domain “.com†is not enough to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.â€); see also Kioti Tractor Div. v. O’Bryan Implement Sales, FA 210302 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2003) (“Respondent's domain name, <kioti.com>, is identical to Complainant's KIOTI mark because adding a top-level domain name is irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).â€).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint. Therefore, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and assertions set forth by Complainant as true and accurate. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard.â€); see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Bavarian AG, FA 110830 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2002) (finding that in the absence of a response, the Panel is free to make inferences from the very failure to respond and assign greater weight to certain circumstances than it might otherwise do).
Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent, in not submitting a response, has failed to rebut this assertion. Thus, the Panel may construe Respondent’s failure to respond as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <smithsonian.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.â€).
Respondent is using the <smithsonian.com> domain name, which is identical to Complainant’s SMITHSONIAN mark, to operate a search engine website that features links to various unrelated websites. The Panel finds that such diversionary use is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names); see also WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy).
Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is either commonly known by the <smithsonian.com> domain name or authorized to register domain names featuring Complainant’s SMITHSONIAN mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) “to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevailâ€); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to various unrelated websites. Because Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, Respondent’s commercial use of the <smithsonian.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant’s mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Qwest Communications Int’l Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 187431 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 6, 2003) (“Respondent's attempt to commercially benefit from the misleading domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).â€).
Furthermore, Respondent registered the <smithsonian.com> domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SMITHSONIAN mark due to Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO and to the immense fame and popularity associated with Complainant’s mark. Registration of a domain name that is identical to another’s mark despite actual or constructive knowledge of the mark holder’s rights is tantamount to bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“[T]here is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively.â€); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“[T]he complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.â€); see also Ty Inc. v. Parvin, D2000-0688 (WIPO Nov. 9, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of an identical and/or confusingly similar domain name was in bad faith where the complainant’s BEANIE BABIES mark was famous and the respondent should have been aware of it).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <smithsonian.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 26, 2005
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum
