Parlex USA Inc. v. Nanci Nette
Claim Number: FA2201001982001
Complainant is Parlex USA Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brian D. Wassom of Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Nanci Nette (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <parlex.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 26, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 26, 2022.
On January 27, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <parlex.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 February 1, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 22, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@parlex.com. Also on February 1, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 27, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it was formed in 1970. It is a world leader in the flexible circuitry and laminated cable assemblies used throughout the computer and electronics markets. Based in Massachusetts, the company has had manufacturing facilities in Rhode Island, Mexico, China, and the United Kingdom, and currently manufactures products in Ohio. Most people in the developed world probably interact with its products every day. Complainant’s components are used in cars, SUVs, planes, computers, printers, cellular phones, handheld electronics, medical equipment, and more. Complainant asserts rights in the PARLEX mark through its registration in the United States in 1985.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to its PARLEX mark, merely affixing the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) after the mark to form a domain name. Complainant formerly owned and used the disputed domain name for decades to advertise its services, which increases the likelihood of consumer confusion. The disputed domain name was originally registered by Complainant in 1986; it was registered by Respondent in 2021 when the registrar inexplicably refused Complainant’s credentials and did not allow renewal of the domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is neither an authorized user nor licensee of the PARLEX mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent directs the disputed domain name to a parked landing page displaying pay-per-click hyperlinks to goods related to Complainant’s business. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a parked website offering monetized hyperlinks, which may demonstrate bad faith attraction to commercial gain. Respondent passes itself off as a subsidiary or other affiliate of Complainant, which also constitutes bad faith. Complainant also contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PARLEX mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark PARLEX and uses it to market electrical components.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 1985.
The disputed domain name was registered by Respondent in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name is not being used.
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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain names incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the “.com” gTLD. Addition of a gTLD to an otherwise identical domain name generally has not deterred past Panels from finding a violation of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru, FA 1759828 (Forum Jan. 12, 2018) (“The Panel here finds that the <bittrex.market> domain name is identical to the BITTREX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Tupelo Honey Hospitality Corporation v. King, Reggie, FA 1732247 (Forum July 19, 2017) (“Addition of a gTLD is irrelevant where a mark has been fully incorporated into a domain name and the gTLD is the sole difference.”). Thus the Panel finds that the <parlex.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s PARLEX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by an infringing domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies “Nanci Nette” as the domain name registrant. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain name resolves to a parked website offering pay-per-click hyperlinks to goods related to Complainant’s business. Such use generally does not qualify as either a bona fide offer of goods or services, nor does it offer a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA1507001629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain name resolves to a parked website offering monetized hyperlinks. Such use may demonstrate that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to attract commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA1403001549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links); see also American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <parlex.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 28, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page