Smith & Wesson Inc. v. Blue Empire Developers / Daniel Lidman
Claim Number: FA2105001945746
Complainant is Smith & Wesson Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jodi A. DeSchane of Ballard Spahr, LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Blue Empire Developers / Daniel Lidman ("Respondent"), Cameroon.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <smithwessonbroker.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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 May 20, 2021; the Forum received payment on May 20, 2021.
On May 20, 2021, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <smithwessonbroker.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 May 21, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 10, 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@smithwessonbroker.com. Also on May 21, 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 June 14, 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 leading manufacturer of handguns, rifles, and other firearm-related products and services, with annual sales of over $678 million. Complainant has used the SMITH & WESSON mark in connection with such products and services for more than 160 years. Complainant owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for SMITH & WESSON in standard character form. The mark is also registered in many other countries around the world, and Complainant asserts that it has become famous based upon longstanding and extensive use, advertising, and public recognition.
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register the disputed domain name <smithwessonbroker.com> in December 2020. The domain name is being used for a website that prominently features Complainant's mark and that, Complainant contends, replicates the look and feel of Complainant's website in order to create the impression that it is affiliated with Complainant. The website also incorporates Complainant's copyrighted product photos and descriptions, and a prior version of the site also included additional components taken from Complainant's website. Respondent's website was taken down by the hosting service provider in March or April 2021, apparently based upon a takedown notice that Complainant sent to the provider, after which Respondent switched hosting providers and reinstated the website with only slight modifications.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <smithwessonbroker.com> is confusingly similar to its SMITH & WESSON 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 <smithwessonbroker.com> incorporates Complainant's registered SMITH & WESSON trademark, omitting the ampersand, adding the generic term "broker," and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Smith & Wesson Inc. v. Douclas Pearlson / energyltd.tl, FA 1945754 (Forum June 15, 2021) (finding <smith‑wessondealers.com> confusingly similar to SMITH & WESSON); Smith & Wesson Inc. v. Joseph Lawrence, FA 1941889 (Forum May 20, 2021) (finding <smith-wessonshop.com> confusingly similar to SMITH & WESSON); Smith & Wesson Corp. v. Allan Hershkop, D2018-0160 (WIPO Apr. 4, 2018) (finding <smithwessonbarrel.name> confusingly similar to SMITH & WESSON); Sig Sauer Inc. v. Blue Empire Developers / Daniel Lidman, FA 1941379 (Forum May 11, 2021) (finding <sigsauerbroker.com> confusingly similar to SIG SAUER). 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 it is being used for a website that attempts to pass off as an official site of Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Sig Sauer Inc. v. Blue Empire Developers / Daniel Lidman, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in 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. 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 used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known mark, and is using it for a deceptive website that purports to sell Complainant's products, while displaying Complainant's mark, imitating the look and feel of Complainant's website, and incorporating content from Complainant's site, all for the apparent purpose of creating a false appearance of a connection to or endorsement by Complainant. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Sig Sauer Inc. v. Blue Empire Developers / Daniel Lidman, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). 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 <smithwessonbroker.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 17, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page