Garrett Transportation I Inc. v. ben flajnik
Claim Number: FA2101001927368
Complainant is Garrett Transportation I Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Lauren Beth Emerson of Leason Ellis LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is ben flajnik ("Respondent"), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <garrettmotlon.com>, registered with Google 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 January 6, 2021; the Forum received payment on January 6, 2021.
On January 7, 2021, Google LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <garrettmotlon.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 January 11, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 1, 2021 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@garrettmotlon.com. Also on January 11, 2021, 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 February 4, 2021, 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 is a developer of various technologies in the global transportation industry. Its parent entity is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange as GARRETT MOTION INC. Complainant and its predecessors have been in the transportation business since the 1930s. The business was acquired by Honeywell International Inc. and was spun off into an independent entity in 2018, but has been known by the name and mark GARRETT throughout its history. Complainant states that in 2017 Honeywell's transportation system business achieved over $3 billion in sales, the vast majority of which is attributable to goods and services offered under the GARRETT brand name. Complainant owns various trademark registrations for GARRETT and related marks in the United States and other jurisdictions, and claims that the GARRETT mark has become famous as a result of longstanding use. Complainant uses the domain name <garrettmotion.com> in connection with its business.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <garrettmotlon.com> through a privacy registration service in December 2021. Complainant characterizes the domain name as an instance of typosquatting, noting that the letter "L" is substituted for the letter "i" in Complainant's domain name. The disputed domain name is not being used for a website; Complainant suggests that Respondent selected the domain name in order to trick recipients of emails bearing the domain name into believing that they are from Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; has no affiliation, association, or business relationship with Complainant; and has not been licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark in any manner.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <garrettmotlon.com> is confusingly similar to its GARRETT 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 <garrettmotlon.com> incorporates Complainant's registered GARRETT trademark, adding the descriptive term "motion" (which also appears in Complainant's domain name), misspelled as "motlon," and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Garrett Transportation I Inc. v. 393965333, FA 1889404 (Forum Apr. 23, 2020) (finding <garrettmotion.global> confusingly similar to GARRETT); Garrett Transportation I Inc. v. Jakub Winkler, FA 1833506 (Forum Apr. 15, 2019) (finding <garrett‑motion.com> confusingly similar to GARRETT); Republic Services, Inc. v. Holly Guarino, FA 1832139 (Forum Apr. 2, 2019) (finding <republicservlces.com> confusingly similar to REPUBLIC SERVICES); Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Contract Dpt, FA 1786866 (Forum June 19, 2018) (finding <boehringer-lngelheim.us> confusingly similar to BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM). 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. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name.
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. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, 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." 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 used a privacy registration service to register the domain name, and presumably selected it for the purpose of creating confusion with Complainant, its well-known mark, or its <garrettmotion.com> domain name. The Panel agrees with Complainant's characterization of Respondent's conduct as typosquatting. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name. In the absence of any explanation from Respondent, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant's mark, most likely either by selling the domain name or by using it to attract Internet users seeking Complainant, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Amanosi Dick / Tdsavings, FA 1889816 (Forum Apr. 23, 2020) (inferring bad faith in similar circumstances). 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 <garrettmotlon.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: February 5, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page