Gaspari Nutrition, Inc. v. SFS Solutions Inc.
Claim Number: FA1005001323593
Complainant is Gaspari Nutrition, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Gregory
M. Krakau, of Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton, P.C.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <gaspari-anavite.com>, <gaspari-anavite.net>, <gaspari-anavite.org>, <gaspari-mitotropin.com>, <gaspari-mitotropin.net>, <gaspari-mitotropin.org>, <gaspari-myofusion.net>, <gaspari-myofusion.org>, <gaspari-novadex.com>, <gaspari-novadex.net>, <gaspari-novadex.org>, <gaspari-sizeon.net>, <gaspari-sizeon.org>, <gaspari-superpump.com>, <gaspari-superpump.net>, <gaspari-superpump.org>, <gaspari-superpump250.com>, <gaspari-superpump250.net>, <gaspari-superpump250.org>, <gasparimitotropin.com>, <gasparimitotropin.net>, <gasparimitotropin.org>, <gasparimyofusion.net>, <gasparimyofusion.org>, <gasparinovadex.com>, <gasparinovadex.net> <gasparinovadex.org>, <gasparisizeon.org>, <gasparisuperpump.org>, <gasparisuperpump250.net>, and <gasparisuperpump250.org>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 7, 2010.
On May 11, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <gaspari-anavite.com>, <gaspari-anavite.net>, <gaspari-anavite.org>, <gaspari-mitotropin.com>, <gaspari-mitotropin.net>, <gaspari-mitotropin.org>, <gaspari-myofusion.net>, <gaspari-myofusion.org>, <gaspari-novadex.com>, <gaspari-novadex.net>, <gaspari-novadex.org>, <gaspari-sizeon.net>, <gaspari-sizeon.org>, <gaspari-superpump.com>, <gaspari-superpump.net>, <gaspari-superpump.org>, <gaspari-superpump250.com>, <gaspari-superpump250.net>, <gaspari-superpump250.org>, <gasparimitotropin.com>, <gasparimitotropin.net>, <gasparimitotropin.org>, <gasparimyofusion.net>, <gasparimyofusion.org>, <gasparinovadex.com>, <gasparinovadex.net>, <gasparinovadex.org>, <gasparisizeon.org>, <gasparisuperpump.org>, <gasparisuperpump250.net>, and <gasparisuperpump250.org> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 May 13, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notification of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 2, 2010 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@gaspari-anavite.com, postmaster@gaspari-anavite.net, postmaster@gaspari-anavite.org, postmaster@gaspari-mitotropin.com, postmaster@gaspari-mitotropin.net, postmaster@gaspari-mitotropin.org, postmaster@gaspari-myofusion.net, postmaster@gaspari-myofusion.org, postmaster@gaspari-novadex.com, postmaster@gaspari-novadex.net, postmaster@gaspari-novadex.org, postmaster@gaspari-sizeon.net, postmaster@gaspari-sizeon.org, postmaster@gaspari-superpump.com, postmaster@gaspari-superpump.net, postmaster@gaspari-superpump.org, postmaster@gaspari-superpump250.com, postmaster@gaspari-superpump250.net, postmaster@gaspari-superpump250.org, postmaster@gasparimitotropin.com, postmaster@gasparimitotropin.net, postmaster@gasparimitotropin.org, postmaster@gasparimyofusion.net, postmaster@gasparimyofusion.org, postmaster@gasparinovadex.com, postmaster@gasparinovadex.net, postmaster@gasparinovadex.org, postmaster@gasparisizeon.org, postmaster@gasparisuperpump.org, postmaster@gasparisuperpump250.net and postmaster@gasparisuperpump250.org by e-mail. Also on May 13, 2010, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 9, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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 <gaspari-anavite.com>, <gaspari-anavite.net>, <gaspari-anavite.org>, <gaspari-mitotropin.com>, <gaspari-mitotropin.net>, <gaspari-mitotropin.org>, <gaspari-myofusion.net>, <gaspari-myofusion.org>, <gaspari-novadex.com>, <gaspari-novadex.net>, <gaspari-novadex.org>, <gaspari-sizeon.net>, <gaspari-sizeon.org>, <gaspari-superpump.com>, <gaspari-superpump.net>, <gaspari-superpump.org>, <gaspari-superpump250.com>, <gaspari-superpump250.net>, <gaspari-superpump250.org>, <gasparimitotropin.com>, <gasparimitotropin.net>, <gasparimitotropin.org>, <gasparimyofusion.net>, <gasparimyofusion.org>, <gasparinovadex.com>, <gasparinovadex.net>, <gasparinovadex.org>, <gasparisizeon.org>, <gasparisuperpump.org>, <gasparisuperpump250.net>, and <gasparisuperpump250.org> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GASPARI NUTRITION mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <gaspari-anavite.com>, <gaspari-anavite.net>, <gaspari-anavite.org>, <gaspari-mitotropin.com>, <gaspari-mitotropin.net>, <gaspari-mitotropin.org>, <gaspari-myofusion.net>, <gaspari-myofusion.org>, <gaspari-novadex.com>, <gaspari-novadex.net>, <gaspari-novadex.org>, <gaspari-sizeon.net>, <gaspari-sizeon.org>, <gaspari-superpump.com>, <gaspari-superpump.net>, <gaspari-superpump.org>, <gaspari-superpump250.com>, <gaspari-superpump250.net>, <gaspari-superpump250.org>, <gasparimitotropin.com>, <gasparimitotropin.net>, <gasparimitotropin.org>, <gasparimyofusion.net>, <gasparimyofusion.org>, <gasparinovadex.com>, <gasparinovadex.net>, <gasparinovadex.org>, <gasparisizeon.org>, <gasparisuperpump.org>, <gasparisuperpump250.net>, and <gasparisuperpump250.org> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <gaspari-anavite.com>, <gaspari-anavite.net>, <gaspari-anavite.org>, <gaspari-mitotropin.com>, <gaspari-mitotropin.net>, <gaspari-mitotropin.org>, <gaspari-myofusion.net>, <gaspari-myofusion.org>, <gaspari-novadex.com>, <gaspari-novadex.net>, <gaspari-novadex.org>, <gaspari-sizeon.net>, <gaspari-sizeon.org>, <gaspari-superpump.com>, <gaspari-superpump.net>, <gaspari-superpump.org>, <gaspari-superpump250.com>, <gaspari-superpump250.net>, <gaspari-superpump250.org>, <gasparimitotropin.com>, <gasparimitotropin.net>, <gasparimitotropin.org>, <gasparimyofusion.net>, <gasparimyofusion.org>, <gasparinovadex.com>, <gasparinovadex.net>, <gasparinovadex.org>, <gasparisizeon.org>, <gasparisuperpump.org>, <gasparisuperpump250.net>, and <gasparisuperpump250.org> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Gaspari
Nutrition, Inc., is a well-known provider of dietary and nutritional
supplements. Complainant owns numerous
trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the
GASPARI marks:
GASPARI NUTRITION Reg. No. 2,989,635 issued August 30,
2005,
SUPERPUMP250 Reg. No. 3,063,580 issued
February 28, 2006,
NOVEDEX Reg. No. 2,985,451
issued August 16, 2005,
SIZEON Reg. No. 3,752,184 issued February
23, 2010, and
MITOTROPIN Reg. No. 3,632,811
issued June 2, 2009.
Complainant has used the
ANAVITE mark continuously since February 28, 2010 when it first began taking
orders for the Anavite supplement, and the mark has been used extensively in
promoting and marketing Complainant’s products.
Complainant has used the MYOFUSION mark continuously since 2009 in
marketing and promoting Complainant’s products.
Respondent, SFS Solutions Inc., registered the <gaspari-anavite.com>, <gaspari-anavite.net>, <gaspari-mitotropin.com>, <gaspari-mitotropin.net>, <gaspari-myofusion.net>, <gaspari-novadex.com>, <gaspari-novadex.net>, <gaspari-sizeon.net>, <gaspari-superpump.com>, <gaspari-superpump.net>, <gaspari-superpump250.com>, <gaspari-superpump250.net>, <gasparimitotropin.com>, <gasparimitotropin.net>, <gasparimyofusion.net>, <gasparinovadex.com>, <gasparinovadex.net>, and <gasparisuperpump250.net> domain names on March 17, 2010. Respondent registered the <gaspari-anavite.org>, <gaspari-mitotropin.org>, <gaspari-myofusion.org>, <gaspari-novadex.org>, <gaspari-sizeon.org>, <gaspari-superpump.org>, <gaspari-superpump250.org>, <gasparimitotropin.org>, <gasparimyofusion.org>, <gasparinovadex.org>, <gasparisizeon.org>, <gasparisuperpump.org>, and <gasparisuperpump250.org> domain names on March 18, 2010. All of Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to directory websites advertising presumed pay-per-click links to Complainant’s products and those of Complainant’s competitors.
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 owns numerous
trademarks with the USPTO for the GASPARI marks:
GASPARI NUTRITION Reg. No. 2,989,635 issued August 30,
2005,
SUPERPUMP250 Reg. No. 3,063,580 issued
February 28, 2006,
NOVEDEX Reg. No. 2,985,451
issued August 16, 2005,
SIZEON Reg. No. 3,752,184 issued February
23, 2010, and
MITOTROPIN Reg. No. 3,632,811
issued June 2, 2009.
The Panel finds that such USPTO trademark registrations conclusively prove Complainant’s rights in the GASPARI NUTRITION, SUPERPUMP250, NOVEDEX, SIZEON, and MITOTROPIN marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), even when the Respondent lives or operates in a country outside the United States. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Complainant asserts common law rights in the ANAVITE and
MYOFUSION marks by virtue of its continuous use of the marks in marketing its
corresponding products since February 2010 and February 2009,
respectively. Complainant asserts that
it has pending trademark registrations with the USPTO for both the ANAVITE and
MYOFUSION marks (e.g., Serial Nos.
77,784,996 filed July 20, 2009 and 77,933,403 filed Feb. 11, 2010,
respectively). Additionally, Complainant
contends that the ANAVITE mark was used in connection with the Anavite product
distribution at the Arnold Classic, a bodybuilding competition in
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) requires that Complainant first present a prima facie case against Respondent before the burden to demonstrate rights and legitimate interests subsequently transfers to Respondent. The Panel finds that Complainant has established an adequate prima facie case in the instant proceedings. As the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the Panel accordingly finds that Respondent has not met this burden to demonstrate rights and legitimate interests. The Panel may therefore infer that Complainant’s allegations are true and that Respondent does not possess rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14(b)] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.”); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the respondent never submitted a response or provided the panel with evidence to suggest otherwise).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information for each of the disputed domain names does not reflect any nominal association between the disputed domain names and Respondent. The Panel finds the failure of the WHOIS information to link Respondent with the disputed domain names is evidence that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and accordingly lacks rights and interest in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant argues that all of Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a directory website featuring a listing of pay-per-click links to Complainant’s products and the products of Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds that maintaining domain names appropriating Complainant’s mark that all resolve to webpages displaying pay-per-click links is not a bona fide offering of goods or services according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Collazo, FA 144628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <hpcanada.com> domain name to post links to commercial websites and subject Internet users to pop-up advertisements was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name); see also Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the 31 disputed domain names appropriating Complainant’s marks in only two consecutive days. The Panel finds that Respondent’s pattern of registering domain names appropriating Complainant’s mark is intended to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in corresponding domain names and is therefore evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Miyar, FA 95623 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2000) (finding that registering multiple domain names in a short time frame indicates an intention to prevent the mark holder from using its mark and provides evidence of a pattern of conduct).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s resolving websites
provide links to Complainant’s own products and to products by Complainant’s
competitors. Complainant contends that
this activity places Respondent in the position of Complainant’s competitor and
that Respondent is intentionally attempting to disrupt Complainant’s business
with the disputed domain names. The
Panel finds that the presence of disruptive pay-per-click links both to
Complainant and to Complainant’s competitors signals bad faith registration and use on the part of Respondent according to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
See Am. Airlines, Inc. v.
Complainant asserts that there are multiple links, both to Complainant and to Complainant’s competitors, on Respondent’s websites resolving from the disputed domain names. These links are presumably pay-per-click links that generate revenue for Respondent. Complainant argues that Respondent intentionally registered the disputed domain names containing Complainant’s marks in order to capitalize on Complainant’s fame and product recognition. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s marks to attract Internet users to its website in order to profit via the pay-per-click links is likely to confuse consumers about Complainant’s affiliation with Respondent or the other links displayed. The Panel finds Respondent’s activities demonstrate bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See BPI Comm’cns, Inc. v. Boogie TV LLC, FA 105755 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2002) (“Complainants are in the music and entertainment business. The links associated with <billboard.tv> and <boogie.tv> appear to be in competition for the same Internet users, which Complainants are trying to attract with the <billboard.com> web site. There is clearly a likelihood of confusion between <billboard.tv> and BILLBOARD as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or of a product or service on the web site.”); see also Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names).
Complainant also alleges that the timing of Respondent’s
registration of the disputed domain names indicates opportunistic bad
faith. Complainant asserts that
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on March 17 and 18, 2010, very
shortly after a wave of publicity regarding Complainant’s GASPARI NUTRITION Anavite
product that debuted at the Arnold Classic bodybuilding competition the weekend
of March 5–7, 2010. The Panel finds that
registering the disputed domain names so soon after a wave of publicity and new
product announcement demonstrates opportunistic bad faith registration and use
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Sota v. Waldron, D2001-0351 (WIPO
June 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s registration of the
<seveballesterostrophy.com> domain name at the time of the announcement
of the Seve Ballesteros Trophy golf tournament “strongly indicates an
opportunistic registration”); see also Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (“If
there had been any doubt as to bad faith, the fact that registration was on the
same day the news leaked about the merger, which was put in evidence, is a
compelling indication of bad faith that [the] respondent has to refute and
which he has failed to do. The panel
finds a negative inference from this.”).
The Panel finds 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 <gaspari-anavite.com>, <gaspari-anavite.net>, <gaspari-anavite.org>, <gaspari-mitotropin.com>, <gaspari-mitotropin.net>, <gaspari-mitotropin.org>, <gaspari-myofusion.net>, <gaspari-myofusion.org>, <gaspari-novadex.com>, <gaspari-novadex.net>, <gaspari-novadex.org>, <gaspari-sizeon.net>, <gaspari-sizeon.org>, <gaspari-superpump.com>, <gaspari-superpump.net>, <gaspari-superpump.org>, <gaspari-superpump250.com>, <gaspari-superpump250.net>, <gaspari-superpump250.org>, <gasparimitotropin.com>, <gasparimitotropin.net>, <gasparimitotropin.org>, <gasparimyofusion.net>, <gasparimyofusion.org>, <gasparinovadex.com>, <gasparinovadex.net>, <gasparinovadex.org>, <gasparisizeon.org>, <gasparisuperpump.org>, <gasparisuperpump250.net>, and <gasparisuperpump250.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 15, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum