Foster and Smith, Inc. v. Private - EXP 2
Claim Number: FA1009001345179
Complainant is Foster and Smith, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kourtney A. Mulcahy, of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Private - EXP 2 (“Respondent”) Grand Cayman.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <drsfosternsmith.com>, registered with BARGIN REGISTER, 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 September 3, 2010.
On September 13, 2010, BARGIN REGISTER, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name is registered with BARGIN REGISTER, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BARGIN REGISTER, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the BARGIN REGISTER, 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 September 15, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 5, 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@drsfosternsmith.com by e-mail. Also on September 15, 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 October 19, 2010, 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" 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 <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DRS. FOSTER SMITH mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Foster and Smith, Inc., is an international distributor and retailer of pet food and wellness supplies. Complainant owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for several variations of its mark including the DOCTORS FOSTER & SMITH (e.g., Reg. No. 2,524,313 issued January 1, 2002) and DRS. FOSTER SMITH marks (e.g., Reg. No. 2,683,524 issued February 4, 2003).
Respondent, Private - EXP 2, registered the <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name on November 13, 2006. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that features a commercial search engine and displays third-party hyperlinks to competing and unrelated websites.
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 DOCTORS FOSTER & SMITH (e.g., Reg. No. 2,524,313 issued January 1, 2002) and DRS. FOSTER SMITH marks (e.g., Reg. No. 2,683,524 issued February 4, 2003) under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its multiple trademark registrations with the USPTO. See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the complainant has rights to the name when the mark is registered in a country even if the complainant has never traded in that country).
Complainant contends that the <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DRS. FOSTER SMITH mark. Complainant argues that the domain name contains its entire mark, absent the impermissible period and spaces between the terms of the mark, with the additions of the letter “n” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that Respondent’s <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DRS. FOSTER SMITH mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”); see also Memoirs, Inc. v. Patel, FA 98244 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 28, 2001) (finding the domain name to be confusingly similar where a period was omitted from the I.MEMOIRS mark and the gTLD “.com” was added); see also Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not possess rights and legitimate interests in the <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant is required to produce 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 display that it does possess rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (finding that if the complainant satisfies its prima facie burden, “then the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name. Respondent has failed to respond to these proceedings, and as such the Panel finds that it may infer that Respondent lacks rights and 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 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.”). However, the Panel will analyze the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name and that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information for the <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name identifies “Private – EXP 2” as the registrant and Respondent has failed to provide the Panel with any evidence indicating that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. World Photo Video & Imaging Corp., FA 109031 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 13, 2002) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by <aolcamera.com> or <aolcameras.com> because the respondent was doing business as “Sunset Camera” and “World Photo Video & Imaging Corp.”); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that features a commercial search engine and displays various third-party links to both unrelated and competing websites. Complainant contends that Respondent receives click-through fees from the businesses advertised, and linked-to, on Respondent’s website. The Panel finds that such use of a confusingly similar domain name does not constitute 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 Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection with 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.
Previous panels have found that a respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring a search engine and competing hyperlinks constitutes a disruption of a complainant’s business. See Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors); 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)(iii) 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). Respondent’s <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name features a search engine and third-party hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors in the pet food and wellness supply industry. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s online, catalog and retail pet supply business and such use constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant alleges, and the Panel infers, that Respondent profits from its receipt of click-through fees from its commercial search engine and various third-party hyperlinks to businesses both in competition with and unrelated to Complainant. Respondent is attempting to profit from the confusingly similar domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation or sponsorship with the domain name and resolving website. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s use of the <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
The Panel finds that 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 <drsfosternsmith.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: October 22, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum