Reliant Technologies, Inc. v. Richard Jones
Claim Number: FA0712001124640
Complainant is Reliant Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Nancy
J. Mertzel, of Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <fraxxel.com>, <fraxxell.com>, <beverlyhillsfraxel.com>, <californiafraxel.com>, <californiafraxellaser.com>, <fraxelablation.com>, <fraxelaserlcost.com>, <fraxelaserlcosts.com>, <fraxelasertreatment.com>, <fraxelasertreatments.com>, <fraxelcost.com>, <fraxelcosts.com>, <fraxelhouston.com>, <fraxella.com>, <faxellasersurgery.com>, <fraxellasertreatment.info>, <fraxellasertreatment.net>, <fraxellasertreatment.org>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenter.com>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenters.com>, <fraxellazer.com>, <fraxellazertreatment.com>, <fraxellazertreatments.com>, <fraxelle.com>, <fraxellosangeles.com>, <fraxeltreatments.com>, <lafraxel.com>, <losangelesfraxel.com>, <newyorkfraxel.com>, <nyfraxel.com>, <santabarbarafraxel.com> and <thermagefraxel.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On December 28, 2007, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <fraxxel.com>, <fraxxell.com>, <beverlyhillsfraxel.com>, <californiafraxel.com>, <californiafraxellaser.com>, <fraxelablation.com>, <fraxelaserlcost.com>, <fraxelaserlcosts.com>, <fraxelasertreatment.com>, <fraxelasertreatments.com>, <fraxelcost.com>, <fraxelcosts.com>, <fraxelhouston.com>, <fraxella.com>, <faxellasersurgery.com>, <fraxellasertreatment.info>, <fraxellasertreatment.net>, <fraxellasertreatment.org>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenter.com>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenters.com>, <fraxellazer.com>, <fraxellazertreatment.com>, <fraxellazertreatments.com>, <fraxelle.com>, <fraxellosangeles.com>, <fraxeltreatments.com>, <lafraxel.com>, <losangelesfraxel.com>, <newyorkfraxel.com>, <nyfraxel.com>, <santabarbarafraxel.com> and <thermagefraxel.com> domain names are registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On January 10, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 30, 2008 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@fraxxel.com, postmaster@fraxxell.com, postmaster@beverlyhillsfraxel.com, postmaster@californiafraxel.com, postmaster@californiafraxellaser.com, postmaster@fraxelablation.com, postmaster@fraxelaserlcost.com, postmaster@fraxelaserlcosts.com, postmaster@fraxelasertreatment.com, postmaster@fraxelasertreatments.com, postmaster@fraxelcost.com, postmaster@fraxelcosts.com, postmaster@fraxelhouston.com, postmaster@fraxella.com, postmaster@faxellasersurgery.com, postmaster@fraxellasertreatment.info, postmaster@fraxellasertreatment.net, postmaster@fraxellasertreatment.org, postmaster@fraxellasertreatmentcenter.com, postmaster@fraxellasertreatmentcenters.com, postmaster@fraxellazer.com, postmaster@fraxellazertreatment.com, postmaster@fraxellazertreatments.com, postmaster@fraxelle.com, postmaster@fraxellosangeles.com, postmaster@fraxeltreatments.com, postmaster@lafraxel.com, postmaster@losangelesfraxel.com, postmaster@newyorkfraxel.com, postmaster@nyfraxel.com, postmaster@santabarbarafraxel.com and postmaster@thermagefraxel.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <fraxxel.com>, <fraxxell.com>, <beverlyhillsfraxel.com>, <californiafraxel.com>, <californiafraxellaser.com>, <fraxelablation.com>, <fraxelaserlcost.com>, <fraxelaserlcosts.com>, <fraxelasertreatment.com>, <fraxelasertreatments.com>, <fraxelcost.com>, <fraxelcosts.com>, <fraxelhouston.com>, <fraxella.com>, <faxellasersurgery.com>, <fraxellasertreatment.info>, <fraxellasertreatment.net>, <fraxellasertreatment.org>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenter.com>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenters.com>, <fraxellazer.com>, <fraxellazertreatment.com>, <fraxellazertreatments.com>, <fraxelle.com>, <fraxellosangeles.com>, <fraxeltreatments.com>, <lafraxel.com>, <losangelesfraxel.com>, <newyorkfraxel.com>, <nyfraxel.com>, <santabarbarafraxel.com> and <thermagefraxel.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FRAXEL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <fraxxel.com>, <fraxxell.com>, <beverlyhillsfraxel.com>, <californiafraxel.com>, <californiafraxellaser.com>, <fraxelablation.com>, <fraxelaserlcost.com>, <fraxelaserlcosts.com>, <fraxelasertreatment.com>, <fraxelasertreatments.com>, <fraxelcost.com>, <fraxelcosts.com>, <fraxelhouston.com>, <fraxella.com>, <faxellasersurgery.com>, <fraxellasertreatment.info>, <fraxellasertreatment.net>, <fraxellasertreatment.org>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenter.com>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenters.com>, <fraxellazer.com>, <fraxellazertreatment.com>, <fraxellazertreatments.com>, <fraxelle.com>, <fraxellosangeles.com>, <fraxeltreatments.com>, <lafraxel.com>, <losangelesfraxel.com>, <newyorkfraxel.com>, <nyfraxel.com>, <santabarbarafraxel.com> and <thermagefraxel.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <fraxxel.com>, <fraxxell.com>, <beverlyhillsfraxel.com>, <californiafraxel.com>, <californiafraxellaser.com>, <fraxelablation.com>, <fraxelaserlcost.com>, <fraxelaserlcosts.com>, <fraxelasertreatment.com>, <fraxelasertreatments.com>, <fraxelcost.com>, <fraxelcosts.com>, <fraxelhouston.com>, <fraxella.com>, <faxellasersurgery.com>, <fraxellasertreatment.info>, <fraxellasertreatment.net>, <fraxellasertreatment.org>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenter.com>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenters.com>, <fraxellazer.com>, <fraxellazertreatment.com>, <fraxellazertreatments.com>, <fraxelle.com>, <fraxellosangeles.com>, <fraxeltreatments.com>, <lafraxel.com>, <losangelesfraxel.com>, <newyorkfraxel.com>, <nyfraxel.com>, <santabarbarafraxel.com> and <thermagefraxel.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Reliant Technologies, Inc., is a manufacturer
of lasers for dermatological treatment, as well as a provider of cosmetic and
plastic surgery treatment services.
Since 2004, Complainant has operated under the FRAXEL mark (Reg. No.
2,974,491 issued
Respondent registered the <fraxxel.com>, <fraxxell.com>,
<beverlyhillsfraxel.com>, <californiafraxel.com>, <californiafraxellaser.com>,
<fraxelablation.com>, <fraxelaserlcost.com>, <fraxelaserlcosts.com>,
<fraxelasertreatment.com>, <fraxelasertreatments.com>,
<fraxelcost.com>, <fraxelcosts.com>, <fraxelhouston.com>,
<fraxella.com>, <faxellasersurgery.com>, <fraxellasertreatment.info>,
<fraxellasertreatment.net>, <fraxellasertreatment.org>,
<fraxellasertreatmentcenter.com>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenters.com>,
<fraxellazer.com>, <fraxellazertreatment.com>, <fraxellazertreatments.com>,
<fraxelle.com>, <fraxellosangeles.com>, <fraxeltreatments.com>,
<lafraxel.com>, <losangelesfraxel.com>, <newyorkfraxel.com>,
<nyfraxel.com>, <santabarbarafraxel.com> and <thermagefraxel.com>
domain names during a
two-day period from September 19 to September 20, 2007. Respondent is not currently using the
disputed domain names to resolve any operating websites.
Respondent has also
been the respondent in a number of other UDRP proceedings in which disputed
domain names have been transferred from Respondent to the respective
complainants in those cases. E.g., First Mariner Bank v. Jones, FA 692491
(Nat. Arb. Forum
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Complainant has established sufficient rights in the FRAXEL mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive."); see also Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive [or] have acquired secondary meaning.”).
Respondent incorporated Complainant’s entire FRAXEL mark in
the <fraxxel.com>, <fraxxell.com>, <fraxella.com> and <fraxelle.com> domain names while merely adding one or more letters such
as “x,” “l,” “la,” and “le,” as well as the generic top-level domain
“.com.” Generally, the addition of
letters to a mark does not render the disputed domain name sufficiently
distinct as to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶
4(a)(i). Further, the addition of
generic top-level domains is irrelevant under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370 (WIPO
Respondent incorporated Complainant’s entire FRAXEL mark in the <beverlyhillsfraxel.com>, <californiafraxel.com>, <californiafraxellaser.com>, <fraxelablation.com>, <fraxelaserlcost.com>, <fraxelaserlcosts.com>, <fraxelasertreatment.com>, <fraxelasertreatments.com>, <fraxelcost.com>, <fraxelcosts.com>, <fraxelhouston.com>, <faxellasersurgery.com>, <fraxellasertreatment.info>, <fraxellasertreatment.net>, <fraxellasertreatment.org>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenter.com>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenters.com>, <fraxellazer.com>, <fraxellazertreatment.com>, <fraxellazertreatments.com>, <fraxellosangeles.com>, <fraxeltreatments.com>, <lafraxel.com>, <losangelesfraxel.com>, <newyorkfraxel.com>, <nyfraxel.com>, <santabarbarafraxel.com> and <thermagefraxel.com> domain names while merely adding either whole or abbreviated geographic qualifiers such as “California,” “Houston,” or “ny,” as well as variations of generic terms such as “laser,” “treatment,” or “surgery.” The addition of geographic or generic terms to a mark generally does not render a disputed domain name distinct for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In all of the above instances, Complainant’s FRAXEL mark remains the dominant feature of the disputed domain names. Furthermore, many of the non-geographic generic terms, including “laser,” and “surgery,” relate to Complainant’s business, which also fails to render the disputed domain names distinct. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Net2phone Inc. v. Netcall SAGL, D2000-0666 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <net2phone-europe.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because “the combination of a geographic term with the mark does not prevent a domain name from being found confusingly similar"); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Because Complainant has established a prima facie case supporting its allegations, the Respondent thus bears the burden to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”).
Respondent is not currently managing any operating websites that correspond to the disputed domain names, nor has Respondent made any demonstrable preparations to use any of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See TMP Int’l, Inc. v. Baker Enters., FA 204112 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“[T]he Panel concludes that Respondent's [inactive] holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that the respondent made preparations to use the domain name or one like it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).
Respondent has failed to offer any evidence which suggests
that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain. Furthermore, the WHOIS domain name
registration information also fails to offer any indication that the Respondent
is known by any of the multitude of domain names he has registered. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat.
Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has been the respondent in other UDRP proceedings
wherein the disputed domain names have been transferred from Respondent to the
respective complainants. E.g., First
Mariner Bank v. Jones, FA
692491 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <fraxxel.com>, <fraxxell.com>, <beverlyhillsfraxel.com>, <californiafraxel.com>, <californiafraxellaser.com>, <fraxelablation.com>, <fraxelaserlcost.com>, <fraxelaserlcosts.com>, <fraxelasertreatment.com>, <fraxelasertreatments.com>, <fraxelcost.com>, <fraxelcosts.com>, <fraxelhouston.com>, <fraxella.com>, <faxellasersurgery.com>, <fraxellasertreatment.info>, <fraxellasertreatment.net>, <fraxellasertreatment.org>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenter.com>, <fraxellasertreatmentcenters.com>, <fraxellazer.com>, <fraxellazertreatment.com>, <fraxellazertreatments.com>, <fraxelle.com>, <fraxellosangeles.com>, <fraxeltreatments.com>, <lafraxel.com>, <losangelesfraxel.com>, <newyorkfraxel.com>, <nyfraxel.com>, <santabarbarafraxel.com> and <thermagefraxel.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dated: February 19, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum