LTD Commodities LLC v. Ling Shun Shing
Claim Number: FA0302000146938
Complainant is LTD Commodities LLC, Bannockburn, IL, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Irwin C. Alter of Alter and
Weiss. Respondent is Ling Shun Shing,
Shanghai, CHINA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <lltdcommodities.com>,
<ltdcommododities.com>, <ltdcommocities.com>, <ltdcommoddities.com>, <ltdcommodeties.com>, <ltdcommodieties.com>, <ltdcommodiies.com>, <ltdcommoditeis.com>, <ltdcommoditie.com>, <ltdcommoditied.com>, <ltdcommodoities.com>, <ltdcommoodities.com>, <ltdcommotidies.com>, <ltdcommodiites.com>, <ltdcommoditis.com> and <ltdcommoditities.com> registered
with Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com.
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.
Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on February 27, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 3, 2003.
On
March 3, 2003, Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain names <lltdcommodities.com>,
<ltdcommododities.com>, <ltdcommocities.com>, <ltdcommoddities.com>, <ltdcommodeties.com>, <ltdcommodieties.com>, <ltdcommodiies.com>, <ltdcommoditeis.com>, <ltdcommoditie.com>, <ltdcommoditied.com>, <ltdcommodoities.com>, <ltdcommoodities.com>, <ltdcommotidies.com>, <ltdcommodiites.com>, <ltdcommoditis.com> and <ltdcommoditities.com> are
registered with Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com and that Respondent
is the current registrant of the names. Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.Com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.Com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com 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
March 4, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
March 24, 2003 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@lltdcommodities.com, postmaster@ltdcommododities.com,
postmaster@ltdcommocities.com, postmaster@ltdcommoddities.com,
postmaster@ltdcommodeties.com, postmaster@ltdcommodieties.com,
postmaster@ltdcommodiies.com, postmaster@ltdcommoditeis.com,
postmaster@ltdcommoditie.com, postmaster@ltdcommoditied.com,
postmaster@ltdcommodoities.com, postmaster@ltdcommoodities.com,
postmaster@ltdcommotidies.com, postmaster@ltdcommodiites.com,
postmaster@ltdcommoditis.com and postmaster@ltdcommoditities.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
March 27, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as
Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the 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."
Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents
submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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 disputed domain names are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s LTD COMMODITIES mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the disputed
domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”) for the LTD COMMODITIES mark (Reg. No. 2,409,188 registered on
November 28, 2000) in relation to a catalog mail-order distributorship for
general merchandise. Complainant has conducted this business from its website
at <ltdcommodities.com> since May 31, 1996.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain names between September 25, 2002 and October 14,
2002. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet
traffic to a portal website that provides connections to other websites
offering a variety of goods and services.
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.
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 has
established its rights in the LTD COMMODITIES mark through registration with
the USPTO and continuous use in commerce since 1963.
Respondent’s
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because each of the
disputed domain names contains a simple misspelling of Complainant’s registered
mark. Respondent’s deliberate inclusion of spelling errors does not
sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s domain names from Complainant’s mark for
Respondent to survive a confusing similarity challenge pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Victoria’s Secret v.
Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by
misspelling words and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not create a
distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks); see also Bama Rags,
Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding that the
domain names, <davemathewsband.com> and <davemattewsband.com>, are
common misspellings and therefore confusingly similar).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has
not come forward to respond to the Complaint in this proceeding. Therefore, the
Panel may accept Complainant’s reasonable inferences and allegations as true. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to
[contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of
complainant’s assertion in this regard”); see
also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000)
(finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that Complainant’s
allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Furthermore, the
Panel may infer that Respondent lacks any rights to or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain names because of Respondent’s failure to favor this Panel
with a Response. See Geocities v.
Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the Respondent
never submitted a response nor provided the Panel with evidence to suggest
otherwise); see also Canadian Imperial
Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc., AF-0336 (eResolution Sept.
23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where no such right or
interest was immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent did not come
forward to suggest any right or interest it may have possessed).
Respondent is
using the disputed domain names to divert Internet traffic to a portal website
that provides connections to websites offering a variety of goods and services.
The use of a confusingly similar domain name to a registered mark to divert
Internet users is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to
confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain
name); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114
(D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because Respondent's sole purpose in selecting
the domain names was to cause confusion with Complainant's website and marks,
its use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or
services or any other fair use).
Moreover,
Respondent has not provided the Panel with any proof and there is no evidence
in the record to establish that Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. Thus, the
Panel infers that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in
connection with a legitimate or fair use); see
also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
in domain names because it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and
Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide
offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is
“typosquatting” on Complainant’s mark. The practice of typosquatting involves
the registration of a common misspelling of a well-known domain name to divert
Internet traffic to a website for commercial gain. Typosquatting has often been
recognized as evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini,
D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling
of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended
destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of
itself evidence of bad faith.”); see also
Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb.
6, 2003) (stating that “in typosquatting cases, such as this one, it would be
difficult for Respondent to prove to the Panel that it did not have actual
knowledge of Complainant’s distinctive MEDLINE mark when it registered the
infringing <wwwmedline.com> domain name”).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <lltdcommodities.com>,
<ltdcommododities.com>, <ltdcommocities.com>, <ltdcommoddities.com>, <ltdcommodeties.com>, <ltdcommodieties.com>, <ltdcommodiies.com>, <ltdcommoditeis.com>, <ltdcommoditie.com>, <ltdcommoditied.com>, <ltdcommodoities.com>, <ltdcommoodities.com>, <ltdcommotidies.com>, <ltdcommodiites.com>, <ltdcommoditis.com> and <ltdcommoditities.com> domain
names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent
to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
April 1, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page