Smith & Wesson Inc. v. julietcbn / juliet cbn
Claim Number: FA2208002008469
Complainant is Smith & Wesson Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Hara K. Jacobs of Ballard Spahr, LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is julietcbn / juliet cbn (“Respondent”), Ohio, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <smith-wessonarms.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 15, 2022; the Forum received payment on August 15, 2022.
On August 15, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <smith-wessonarms.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 August 17, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 6, 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@smith-wessonarms.com. Also on August 17, 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 September 7, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco, 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Smith & Wesson Inc., operates as a firearm manufacturer.
Complainant claims rights in the SMITH & WESSON mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <smith-wessonarms.com> domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s mark and adds the generic term “arms” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <smith-wessonarms.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its SMITH & WESSON mark in the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain name’s resolving webpage to pass off as Complainant in order to deceive users with a false impression of affiliation with Complainant in the furtherance of a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the <smith-wessonarms.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the confusingly similar nature of the at-issue domain name and phony SMITH & WESSON website to impersonate Complainant and attract users with a false impression of association with Complainant. Finally, Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SMITH & WESSON mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in SMITH & WESSON.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the SMITH & WESSON trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of phishing.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registration for its SMITH & WESSON trademark. Such registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Respondent’s <smith-wessonarms.com> domain name contains Complainant’s SMITH & WESSON trademark with the mark’s domain name impermissible ampersand replaced by a hyphen. The altered trademark is followed by the suggestive term “arms” and the resulting string is followed by the “.com” top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s SMITH & WESSON trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <smith-wessonarms.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See Smith & Wesson Inc. v. Joseph Lawrence, FA2104001941889 (Forum May 20, 2021) (transferring the <smith-wessonshop.com> domain name as the “substitution of the ampersand by the [hyphen] is inconsequential in the overall comparison…since an ampersand cannot be used as a matter of domain name syntax.”); see also, Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which the complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity); see also, Katadyn N. Am. v. Black Mountain Stores, FA 520677 (Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (“[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.net” is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether a domain name is identical to a mark.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <smith-wessonarms.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name ultimately identifies the domain name’s registrant as “julietcbn” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <smith-wessonarms.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent uses its confusingly similar at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent deceives potential customers into believing there is an affiliation with Complainant by mimicking aspects of Complainant’s genuine website, including Complainant’s mark and logo as well as other proprietary material, on a website addressed by the confusingly similar <smith-wessonarms.com> domain name. The scheme is aimed at stealing internet users’ personal information and/or money. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”); see also, United Services Automobile Association v. john arkoos, FA1702001718272 (Forum Mar. 28, 2017) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and transferring the <usaainfocenter.com> domain name based on Respondent using the domain name to engage in a phishing scheme intended to defraud Internet users).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights or legitimate interests, Respondent uses the confusingly similar <smith-wessonarms.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and perpetrate a phishing scheme. Such use of the at-issue domain name demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and otherwise. See Ceridian HCM, Inc. v. Brandon Cohen, FA1912001874016 (Forum Jan. 2, 2020) (“Using a confusingly similar domain name to pass off as a complainant via fraudulent emails can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SMITH & WESSON mark when it registered <smith-wessonarms.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s famous trademark and from Respondent’s use of <smith-wessonarms.com> to pass itself off at Complainant. Registering and using a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <smith-wessonarms.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <smith-wessonarms.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: September 8, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page