Holly Corporation and Frontier Oil Corporation and Frontier Refining & Marketing Inc. v. Charles Zwirtz
Claim Number: FA1104001385301
Complainant is Holly Corporation and Frontier Oil Corporation and Frontier Refining & Marketing Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Julianna P. Deligans of Hall Estill P.C., Oklahoma, USA. Respondent is Charles Zwirtz (“Respondent”), Oklahoma, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hollyfrontiercorporation.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 21, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 22, 2011.
On April 26, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 April 27, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 17, 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@hollyfrontiercorporation.com. Also on April 27, 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 May 23, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 a response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOLLY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Holly Corporation and Frontier Oil Corporation and Frontier Refining & Marketing Inc., uses its HOLLY mark in connection with its petroleum refining services and uses its FRONTIER mark in connection with gasoline and fuel foods. Complainant owns United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) trademark registrations for the HOLLY mark:
Reg. No. 3,281,875 issued August 21, 2007 and
Reg. No. 3,282,206 issued August 21, 2007.
Complainant also owns a USPTO trademark registration for the FRONTIER mark (Reg. No. 673,081 issued January 27, 1959).
Respondent, Charles Zwirtz, registered the <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name on February 22, 2011. The disputed domain name resolves to a generic website with a listing of unrelated pay-per-click links.
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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complainant.” The Panel finds that in this case, Complainants have demonstrated a sufficient nexus to be treated as a single entity and will be referred to collectively as “Complainant” throughout the rest of this decision template.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s trademark registrations are sufficient to prove its rights in the HOLLY mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See SDC Media, Inc. v. SCMedia, FA 960250 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2007) (holding that “[t]his trademark registration [with the USPTO] establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Complainant also owns a trademark registration for its FRONTIER mark, conclusive evidence of Complainant’s rights in the FRONTIER mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2007) (finding that “Complainant’s timely registration with the USPTO and subsequent use of the BIG TOW mark establishes rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because the disputed domain name is a combination of Complainant’s HOLLY and FRONTIER marks, with the additional generic term “corporation” and the appended generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). The Panel finds that combining two of Complainant’s marks does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s marks. See Fitness Anywhere, Inc. v. Mode Athletics, FA 1320667 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 20, 2010) (“Respondent’s <trxsuspensiontraining.com> disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRX and SUSPENSION marks because it combines Complainant’s marks and merely adds the generic top-level domain “.com.”); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Domain Contact 3, FA 1222420 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 13, 2008) (holding that the <hotjobsyahoo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOTJOBS mark because the disputed domain name merely combined Complainant’s HOTJOBS mark with Complainant’s YAHOO! mark). The Panel determines that the addition of the generic term “corporation” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Rana, FA 304696 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2004) (finding that the addition of the generic term “collection” to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark failed to distinguish the domain name from the mark); see also Sutton Group Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Rodger, D2005-0126 (WIPO June 27, 2005) (finding that the domain name <suttonpromo.com> is confusingly similar to the SUTTON mark because the addition of descriptive or non-distinctive elements to the distinctive element in a domain name is immaterial to the analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel also concludes that the appended gTLD is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See 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 accordingly holds that Respondent’s <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOLLY and FRONTIER marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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 UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case in support of its contentions. Respondent has failed to respond to these proceedings. Nevertheless, the Panel will examine the record in its entirety, in light of the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors, to determine whether Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been commonly known by or associated with the <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies the registrant as “Charles Zwirtz,” which shows no connection between the disputed domain name and Respondent. The Panel thus concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and lacks rights and legitimate interests according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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.”); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail").
Complainant states that Respondent’s <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name resolves to a generic website with a listing of unrelated pay-per-click links. This use does not comport with the Policy requirements for a bona fide offering of goods or services according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a portal with hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which may be in direct competition with a complainant, 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)).
Complainant also asserts that Respondent has offered the <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name for sale through the registrar’s “Domain Buy Service.” The Panel finds that this offer to sell the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that a respondent’s willingness to sell a domain name to the complainant suggests that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in that domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s resolving website advertises that the <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name is for sale. The Panel finds that this offer to sell the disputed domain name indicates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered domain names for sale).
Respondent’s resolving website displays pay-per-click links that are unrelated to Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that Respondent included Complainant’s HOLLY mark in the <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name to attract Complainant’s consumers, create a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of Respondent’s resolving website, and profit from the pay-per-click fees generated. The Panel finds that these activities constitute Respondent’s bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“the Panel finds the respondent is appropriating the complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”); see also MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant’s website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme).
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 <hollyfrontiercorporation.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: May 30, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page