The domain name AnnLanders.com was ordered transfer to the Margo Howard Primary Trust and Margo Howard from the domain owner Ann Landers Fans International, LTD

For those not old enough to remember her, Ann Landers was person who wrote a syndicated newspaper column for 56 years

The Complainant claims to own the ANN LANDERS trademark as assignee of the trademark registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 831, 048, registered June 27, 1967).

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. While purporting to be “Ann Landers Fans International, LTD.” per the WHOIS record, Complainant claims there is no affirmative evidence that such Respondent is fact known by this name or even that this alleged group is in operation.

In support of this allegation, Complainant provides the Panel with a Google search showing the name only identified by its connection to the disputed domain name.

As there is insufficient evidence in the record affirming Respondent is in fact commonly known by the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that Complainant has carried its Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) burden.

Further showing Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in or to the domain name, Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name resolves to promotional advertisements and links to unrelated websites.

The featured links include, “The Wall Street Journal,” “Try The New York Times,” and “Nikkei Asian Review,” which relate to Complainant’s own efforts in a syndicated newspaper column.

Complainant adds that Respondent is attempting to monetize the resolving page via advertising revenue, as demonstrated by Respondent’s reliance on the SmartName monetization service.

The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for commercial advertisements and links relating to Complainant’s field of operation amounts to neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

Complainant argues that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Specifically, Complainant claims that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant.

Accordingly, the Respondent’s efforts to monetize misdirected traffic through the domain name evinces Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).