King Ranch IP, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot
Claim Number: FA1907001851464
Complainant is King Ranch IP, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Christopher Weimer of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot ("Respondent"), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <kingranchproven.com>, registered with Dynadot LLC.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 10, 2019; the Forum received payment on July 10, 2019.
On July 11, 2019, Dynadot LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <kingranchproven.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On July 11, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 31, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@kingranchproven.com. Also on July 11, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 2, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant has used the KING RANCH name and mark since 1853 in connection with cattle and horse breeding and various other products and services. Complainant owns many U.S. trademark registrations for KING RANCH, and on May 15, 2019, filed an intent-to-use application to register KING RANCH PROVEN.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <kingranchproven.com> on May 18, 2019. The domain name redirects users to a web page offering the domain name for sale for a price of $988. Complainant states that Respondent has no relationship or connection to Complainant; has never received any authorization, permission, or license to use the KING RANCH mark; and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <kingranchproven.com> is confusingly similar to its KING RANCH mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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."
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.
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(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <kingranchproven.com> incorporates Complainant's registered KING RANCH trademark, omitting the space and adding the generic term "proven" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., King Ranch IP, LLC v. Michael Guill, FA 1838058 (Forum May 7, 2019) (finding <kingranchcannabis.com> confusingly similar to KING RANCH); King Ranch, Inc. & King Ranch IP, LLC v. Alvio Dominguez, FA 1272858 (Forum Aug. 27, 2009) (finding <kingranchcigars.com> confusingly similar to KING RANCH). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its sole apparent use has been to redirect Internet users to a web page that offers the domain name for sale. Such use is unlikely to give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., NETSCOUT SYSTEMS INC. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1849802 (Forum July 29, 2019) (finding lack of rights or interests under similar circumstances).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth circumstances that serve as evidence of registration and use in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, for example, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name."
The instances of bad faith set forth in paragraph 4(b) are merely illustrative, and bad faith may be found based upon other circumstances in appropriate cases. The timing of a domain name registration in particular may support an inference of opportunistic bad faith. See, e.g., NETSCOUT SYSTEMS INC., supra (finding bad faith where domain name corresponding to mark was registered four days after trademark application was filed). Here, the disputed domain name was registered just three days after Complainant applied to register the KING RANCH PROVEN trademark, and its sole apparent use has been to promote the domain name for sale. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <kingranchproven.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: August 5, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page