Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. v. Bunie.com
Claim Number: FA0902001248927
Complainant is Pacific
Sunwear of California, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by , of CitizenHawk, Inc.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <pacficsunwear.com>, <pacsunwear.com>, and <pasificsunwear.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.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 20, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 24, 2009.
On February 23, 2009, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <pacficsunwear.com>, <pacsunwear.com>, and <pasificsunwear.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 February 27, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 19, 2009 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@pacficsunwear.com, postmaster@pacsunwear.com, and postmaster@pasificsunwear.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 26, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
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 <pacficsunwear.com>, <pacsunwear.com>, and <pasificsunwear.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PACIFIC SUNWEAR mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <pacficsunwear.com>, <pacsunwear.com>, and <pasificsunwear.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <pacficsunwear.com>, <pacsunwear.com>, and <pasificsunwear.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., began in
1980 as a surf shop in
Respondent registered the disputed <pacficsunwear.com>, <pacsunwear.com>, and <pasificsunwear.com> domain names on October 11, 2000. The disputed domain names resolve to Complainant’s website through Complainant’s affiliate program, of which Respondent is a member, and contrary to the affiliate agreement.
Respondent has been the respondent in other UDRP proceedings
in which the disputed domain names were transferred from Respondent to the
respective complainants in those cases. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bunie.com, FA 519308 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
7, 2005); see also Freightliner LLC v.
Bunie.com, FA 528542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2005).
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has set forth sufficient
evidence of its rights in the PACIFIC SUNWEAR mark through its registration
with the USPTO pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26,
2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM,
CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Miller Brewing
The disputed <pacficsunwear.com>, <pacsunwear.com>, and <pasificsunwear.com> domain names each contain Complainant’s PACIFIC SUNWEAR mark while either misspelling “pacific” or abbreviating “pacific” as “pac.” Moreover, each disputed domain name contains the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), and that misspellings or abbreviations fail to thwart a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Modern Props, Inc. v. Wallis, FA 152458 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2003) (“Notwithstanding the analysis by Respondent, ‘modprops’ is a contraction or shorthand for ‘Modern Props.’ ‘Mod’ cononotes [sic] ‘modern’ regardless of any other dictionary meanings, so the names are substantially similar in meaning.”); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks). Therefore, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has asserted that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Once Complainant has set forth a prima facie case supporting its allegations, as it has in this case, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that is 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”); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of [UDRP] paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”).
Respondent offers no evidence to suggest that it is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Moreover, the WHOIS domain name registration information provides no contrary assertion, as Respondent is listed as “Bunie.com.” Finally, there is no evidence that Respondent ever obtained authorization to use Complainant’s mark in a domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent
is a member of Complainant’s affiliate program, and that Respondent has
violated the terms of such agreement by registering the disputed domain names
containing Complainant’s mark and using them to reroute Internet users to
Complainant for material gain via referral fees. The Panel finds that, without any contrary
evidence from Respondent, Respondent has failed to create a bona fide offering of goods or services
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Sports
Moreover, each of the disputed domain
names contains a misspelled version of Complainant’s PACIFIC SUNWEAR mark. Complainant has alleged that this constitutes
“typosquatting,” which is defined as the purposeful registration of domain
names that maximize the potential of Internet users’ common typographical
errors. The Panel finds that Respondent
has engaged in typosquatting, and therefore finds that Respondent lacks rights
and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has been the respondent in other UDRP proceedings
in which the disputed domain names were transferred from Respondent to the
respective complainants in those cases. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bunie.com, FA 519308 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
7, 2005); see also Freightliner LLC v.
Bunie.com, FA 528542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2005). The Panel finds that this constitutes a
pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Westcoast Contempo
Fashions Ltd. v.
Moreover, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of
Complainant’s affiliate program to materially benefit via the redirection of
Internet users to Complainant’s website evidences Respondent’s bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
See Sports
Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent’s engagement in
typosquatting constitutes additional evidence of bad faith registration and use
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Computerized
Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003)
(finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad
faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Nextel Commc’ns
Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use
of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name
epitomized typosquatting in its purest form).
The Panel finds Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <pacficsunwear.com>, <pacsunwear.com>, and <pasificsunwear.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: April 8, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum