Huntsman International, LLC v. Milen Radumilo
Claim Number: FA2008001910409
Complainant is Huntsman International, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Steven M. Espenshade of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Milen Radumilo ("Respondent"), Romania.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <huntsman.us>, registered with CommuniGal Communication Ltd.
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 August 28, 2020; the Forum received payment on August 28, 2020.
On August 30, 2020, CommuniGal Communication Ltd. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <huntsman.us> domain name is registered with CommuniGal Communication Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CommuniGal Communication Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the CommuniGal Communication Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce's usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On August 31, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 21, 2020 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@huntsman.us. Also on August 31, 2020, 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 September 29, 2020, 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 usTLD 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 usTLD Policy, usTLD 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 is a global manufacturer of products used in a variety of industries, including plastics, chemicals, automotive products, and others. Complainant operates facilities in approximately 30 countries and had over $6 billion in revenue in 2019. Complainant states that it has used the HUNTSMAN mark in connection with its goods and services since at least as early as 1970. Complainant owns several U.S. trademark registrations for HUNTSMAN in the form of a stylized mark composed of the word "HUNTSMAN" in upper-case letters with a horizontal line above the word and another line below it.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <huntsman.us> in July 2020. The domain name is being used for a parked webpage displaying pay-per-click links to third-party websites, with titles that include "Advanced Materials" and "Epoxy Adhesive." Complainant states that these titles refer to goods that Complainant offers under its HUNTSMAN mark. Complainant states further that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been licensed or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use its mark. Complainant asserts that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names, citing seven adverse decisions under the usTLD Policy and 45 adverse decisions under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP").
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <huntsman.us> is identical to its HUNTSMAN mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered or 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 identical 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 or 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the UDRP and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP principles as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 <huntsman.us> corresponds to Complainant's registered HUNTSMAN trademark, adding only the ".us" top-level domain. The top-level domain is normally disregarded for purposes of the Policy, leaving only the portion that is identical to Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Huntsman Int'l, LLC v. Hostjaja Inc / Hostjaja, FA 1782063 (Forum May 23, 2018) (finding <huntssman.com> confusingly similar to HUNTSMAN); Udemy Inc. v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1694614 (Forum Nov. 2, 2016) (finding <udemy.us> identical to UDEMY); Mindtree Ltd. v. Bruce Mole, FA 1684535 (Forum Aug. 30, 2016) (finding <mindtree.us> identical to MINDTREE). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to Complainant's mark.
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 is for a page composed of pay-per-click links. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Calvin Klein Inc. v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1893284 (Forum June 29, 2020) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Mindtree Ltd. v. Bruce Mole, supra (same).
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 or is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's registered mark and is using for the sole apparent purpose of displaying pay-per-click links, some of which appear to relate to goods or services that are also offered by Complainant. The Panel is also mindful of Respondent's history of bad faith domain name registrations, as evidenced by numerous adverse findings in prior proceedings under the usTLD Policy and the UDRP. Such conduct, particularly when considered in light of Respondent's pattern of behavior, is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Calvin Klein Inc. v. Milen Radumilo, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Udemy Inc. v. Milen Radumilo, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <huntsman.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: October 4, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page