Wahl Clipper Corporation v. Jochen Wahl and Elektro-Wahl GmbH
Claim Number: FA1008001339694
Complainant is Wahl Clipper Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Joan
L. Long, of Barnes & Thornburg LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <elektro-wahl-gmbh.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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 6, 2010.
On August 9, 2010, ENOM, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <elektro-wahl-gmbh.com> domain name is registered with ENOM, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 August 11, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 31, 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@elektro-wahl-gmbh.com by e-mail. Also on August 11, 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 September 13, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <elektro-wahl-gmbh.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WAHL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <elektro-wahl-gmbh.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <elektro-wahl-gmbh.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Wahl Clipper Corporation, is a designer, manufacturer and distributor of electric hair clippers, scissors and other hair related accessories. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its WAHL mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,372,190 issued November 26, 1985). Complainant also owns trademark registrations with the European Union’s Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,436,622 issued April 26, 2006) and the German Patent and Trademark Office (“DPMA”) (Reg. No. 751,784 issued November 8, 1961).
Respondent, Jochen Wahl and Elektro-Wahl GmbH, registered the <elektro-wahl-gmbh.com> domain name on July 19, 2010. Respondent’s disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.
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 submitted sufficient evidence to show that it has rights in the WAHL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its numerous worldwide trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,372,190 issued November 26, 1985), OHIM (e.g., Reg. No. 4,436,622 issued April 26, 2006) and DPMA (Reg. No. 751,784 issued November 8, 1961). See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <elektro-wahl-gmbh.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WAHL mark. Complainant argues that the domain name in question contains its entire WAHL mark with the descriptive terms “elektro” and “gmbh,” German for a corporate identifier, which refer to Complainants electric clippers and European division called “Wahl GmbH.” The Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WAHL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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); see also Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Easynet Ltd, FA 944330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (“The additions of generic words with an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business and a gTLD renders the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have any rights and legitimate interests in the <elektro-wahl-gmbh.com> domain name. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”). The Panel finds that Complainant has produced a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond). The Panel, however, will examine the record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant contends that Respondent is neither commonly
known by the <elektro-wahl-gmbh.com>
domain name nor has
Complainant granted Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information for the <elektro-wahl-gmbh.com>
domain name
identitfies “Elektro-Wahl GmbH c/o Jochen
Wahl” as the registrant of the disputed
domain name. The Panel finds that there
is no further evidence on record indicating that Respondent is commonly known
by the disputed domain name, and Respondent offers no evidence to negate
Complainant’s contentions. Therefore,
the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain
name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) and therefore lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA
830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the
respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the
<emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to
register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit
evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name);
see also Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7,
2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed
domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in
the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the
disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to
register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Complainant contends that since registering the <elektro-wahl-gmbh.com> domain name on July 19, 2010 Respondent has failed to make an active use of the domain name or to make demonstrable preparations for such use. The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is evidence that Respondent has not used the domain name, or shown demonstrable preparations for such use, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncomercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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); see also Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that it may consider the totality of the circumstances when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) analysis, and that the review is not limited to the enumerated factors in Policy ¶ 4(b) but to the totality of the circumstances. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (“The requirement in the ICANN Policy that a complainant prove that domain names are being used in bad faith does not require that it prove in every instance that a respondent is taking positive action. Use in bad faith can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances even when the registrant has done nothing more than register the names.”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent has not connected the <elektro-wahl-gmbh.com> domain name with active content or made any preparations to do so. Absent any evidence from Respondent indicating preparations to use the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).
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 <elektro-wahl-gmbh.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: September 20, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum