GLOCK, Inc. v. tiano geneve
Claim Number: FA2112001978915
Complainant is GLOCK, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Gavin M. Strube of Renzulli Law Firm, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is tiano geneve ("Respondent"), Alaska, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <glockofficials.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 December 31, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 31, 2021.
On January 3, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <glockofficials.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 January 6, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 26, 2022 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@glockofficials.com. Also on January 6, 2022, 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 January 31, 2022, 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 manufactures and distributes firearms and related goods in the United States. Complainant has used the GLOCK trademark in connection with such goods since at least as early as 1986 and owns several United States trademark registrations for GLOCK in standard character form. Complainant states that GLOCK is the most popular pistol brand in the United States and worldwide.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <glockofficials.com> via a privacy registration service in July 2021. The domain name is being used for a website that displays the GLOCK mark and images of Complainant's products, offering these products for sale. A message at the bottom of the home page refers to the website as "The Official Glock Oline [sic] Store." The website does not otherwise identify its operator, nor disclaim any connection with Complainant. Complainant alleges that Respondent does not actually ship any products or communicate with consumers after collecting their information and money, and that based upon the information collected on the website's checkout page, it would be unlawful for Respondent to ship firearms to purchasers. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <glockofficials.com> is confusingly similar to its GLOCK 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 <glockofficials.com> incorporates Complainant's registered GLOCK trademark, adding the plural form of the generic term "official" 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., GLOCK, Inc. v. Legend Killer, FA 1956912 (Forum Aug. 20, 2021) (finding <glocksofficial.com> confusingly similar to GLOCK); Ball Corp. v. Jiahongnetwork Jiahongnetwork, FA 1919288 (Forum Dec. 14, 2020) (finding <ballofficials.com> confusingly similar to BALL). 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 passes off as Complainant, offering or purporting to offer Complainant's products for sale, and that likely is part of a fraudulent scheme to collect personal information from users. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., SIG SAUER Inc. v. Tombigbee Communications / Rodger Morgan, FA 1963642 (Forum Oct. 11, 2021) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); GLOCK, Inc. v. Legend Killer, 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 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 that incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and is using the domain name for a website that passes off as Complainant to offer or purport to offer Complainant's products for sale, and likely to phish for users' personal information. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., SIG SAUER Inc. v. Tombigbee Communications / Rodger Morgan, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); GLOCK, Inc. v. Legend Killer, supra (same). The Panel also notes that Respondent appears to have engaged in similar conduct targeting at least one other mark. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Tiano Geneve, FA 1913812 (Forum Oct. 24, 2020) (ordering transfer of <ilovejuulpods.com>); JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Tiano Geneve, FA 1896772 (Forum June 15, 2020) (ordering transfer of <premiumjuulpods.com>). Respondent's use of a privacy registration service and provision of at least partially fictitious underlying registration data are further indications of bad faith.
See, e.g., Licensing IP International S.à.r.l. v. Harold Haynes, FA 1897515 (Forum June 24, 2020). 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 <glockofficials.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: February 2, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page