Mead Johnson & Company, LLC v. J Banks
Claim Number: FA1102001373374
Complainant is Mead Johnson & Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by R. Parrish Freeman of Waddey & Patterson, P.C., Tennessee, USA. Respondent is J Banks (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <enfamilcouponsprintable.org> and <enfamilcouponsprintable.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 16, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 16, 2011.
On February 17, 2011, GoDaddy.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enfamilcouponsprintable.org> and <enfamilcouponsprintable.net> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On February 18, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 2011 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@enfamilcouponsprintable.org and postmaster@enfamilcouponsprintable.net. Also on February 18, 2011, 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 March 16, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 <enfamilcouponsprintable.org> and <enfamilcouponsprintable.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENFAMIL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enfamilcouponsprintable.org> and <enfamilcouponsprintable.net> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <enfamilcouponsprintable.org> and <enfamilcouponsprintable.net> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, is a manufacturer and distributor of infant and children’s nutritional products. Complainant owns several trademark registrations for its ENFAMIL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") including, (e.g., Reg. No. 696,534 issued April 19, 1960).
Respondent, J Banks, registered the <enfamilcouponsprintable.org> and <enfamilcouponsprintable.net> domain names on January 14, 2011. Respondent’s <enfamilcouponsprintable.net> domain name resolves to a website that appears to be a blog website for information about Complainant’s products that also features third-party links to Complainant and its competitors, as well as to unrelated companies. Respondent’s <enfamilcouponsprintable.org> resolves to a parked website that features a search engine and various third-party links to Complainant and its 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has offered sufficient evidence to establish rights in its mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), by providing evidence of its trademark registrations with the USPTO for the ENFAMIL mark (e.g., Reg. No. 696,534 issued April 19, 1960). See Morgan Stanley v. Fitz-James, FA 571918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2005) (finding from a preponderance of the evidence that the complainant had registered its mark with national trademark authorities, the Panel determined that “such registrations present a prima facie case of Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).
Further, Complainant argues that the <enfamilcouponsprintable.org> and <enfamilcouponsprintable.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENFAMIL mark. Complainant notes that the disputed domain names both contain its entire mark while addition the terms “coupons” and “printable” along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.org,” or “.net.” The Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Sadler, FA 250236 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2004) (finding the addition of generic terms to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark in the respondent’s <shop4harrypotter.com> and <shopforharrypotter.com> domain names failed to alleviate the confusing similarity between the mark and the domain names); see also Disney Enters. Inc. v. McSherry, FA 154589 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding the <disneyvacationvillas.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark because it incorporated Complainant’s entire famous mark and merely added two terms to it); 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 has alleged that Respondent does not possess rights and legitimate interests in the <enfamilcouponsprintable.org> and <enfamilcouponsprintable.net> domain names 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 names. 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 <enfamilcouponsprintable.org> and <enfamilcouponsprintable.net> domain names. 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 names. 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 names under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant further contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s ENFAMIL mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies Respondent as “J Banks,” and there is no further evidence on record showing that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that without affirmative evidence of Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name 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 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).
Respondent’s <enfamilcouponsprintable.net> domain name resolves to a website that appears to be a blog website for information about Complainant’s products that also features third-party links to Complainant and its competitors, as well as to unrelated companies. Complainant alleges that Respondent receives commercial income from its use of the third-party links on its website, and that such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not 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. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)); see also 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).”).
Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <enfamilcouponsprintable.org> domain name resolves to a parked website that features a search engine and various third-party links to Complainant and its competitors. Complainant contends that Respondent receives commercial benefit from such use of the domain name in the form of click-through and referral fees. Previous panels have determined that where a disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that contains third-party links to Complainant and its competitors, that such use 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), and so this Panel finds. See Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed 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 also Charles Letts & Co Ltd. v. Citipublications, FA 692150 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s parking of a domain name containing the complainant’s mark for the respondent’s commercial gain did not satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant argues that both of the disputed domain names resolve to websites that contain third-party links to Complainant’s competitors in the infant and child nutritional product industry. Complainant argues that this diversion of its potential customers is causing a disruption to Complainant’s business and online presence. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name primarily to disrupt Complainant’s business, and that as such has registered and used the domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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); see also David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business).
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent is commercially benefitting from its use of click-through links placed on its websites. Complainant argues that Respondent is using its ENFAMIL mark within the domain names and websites to confuse Internet users as to the source or sponsorship of the websites and the content thereon. Complainant asserts that such usage of its ENFAMIL mark is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to provide information and various third-party links is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); 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.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enfamilcouponsprintable.org> and <enfamilcouponsprintable.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: March 30, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page