national arbitration forum

DECISION

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. v. Alichec Inc. / Alex Ovechkin / Balram Brahmin / Belroots Pty Ltd / Chin-Hui Wu / David Ghou / Denesh Kumar / Denholm Borg / Domain Administrator / Elarson & Associates Pty Ltd / Liquid SEO Limited / Luchichang Pty Ltd / Marcelos Vainez / Loshedina Inc / Netmilo / Oleg Techino / Orel Hlasek LLC / Vlad Obchikov / Web Pescados LLC / Webatopia Marketing Limited / WuWeb Pty Ltd / ZincFusion Limited

Claim Number: FA1302001487371

PARTIES

Complainant is U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Alichec Inc. / Alex Ovechkin / Balram Brahmin / Belroots Pty Ltd / Chin-Hui Wu / David Ghou / Denesh Kumar / Denholm Borg / Domain Administrator / Elarson & Associates Pty Ltd / Liquid SEO Limited / Luchichang Pty Ltd / Marcelos Vainez / Loshedina Inc / Netmilo / Oleg Techino / Orel Hlasek LLC / Vlad Obchikov / Web Pescados LLC / Webatopia Marketing Limited / WuWeb Pty Ltd / ZincFusion Limited (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <icwhitney.com>, <jcahitney.com>, <jccwhitney.com>, <jcewhitney.com>, <jcwaitney.com>, <jcwbitney.com>, <jcwhidney.com>, <jcwhiitney.com>, <jcwhitneh.com>, <jcwhitnei.com>, <jcwhitneyi.com>, <jcwhitneyy.com>, <jcwhitnsy.com>, <jcwhjtney.com>, <jcwnitney.com>, <jcwuitney.com>, <jcwyitney.com>, <jfwhitney.com>, <jjcwhitney.com>, <mcwhitney.com>, <ncwhitney.com>, <ucwhitney.com>, and <partatrain.com>, registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 27, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 27, 2013.

On February 27, 2013, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <icwhitney.com>, <jcahitney.com>, <jccwhitney.com>, <jcewhitney.com>, <jcwaitney.com>, <jcwbitney.com>, <jcwhidney.com>, <jcwhiitney.com>, <jcwhitneh.com>, <jcwhitnei.com>, <jcwhitneyi.com>, <jcwhitneyy.com>, <jcwhitnsy.com>, <jcwhjtney.com>, <jcwnitney.com>, <jcwuitney.com>, <jcwyitney.com>, <jfwhitney.com>, <jjcwhitney.com>, <mcwhitney.com>, <ncwhitney.com>, <ucwhitney.com>, and <partatrain.com> domain names are registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GODADDY.COM, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GODADDY.COM, LLC 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 March 7, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 27, 2013 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@icwhitney.com, postmaster@jcahitney.com, postmaster@jccwhitney.com, postmaster@jcewhitney.com, postmaster@jcwaitney.com, postmaster@jcwbitney.com, postmaster@jcwhidney.com, postmaster@jcwhiitney.com, postmaster@jcwhitneh.com, postmaster@jcwhitnei.com, postmaster@jcwhitneyi.com, postmaster@jcwhitneyy.com, postmaster@jcwhitnsy.com, postmaster@jcwhjtney.com, postmaster@jcwnitney.com, postmaster@jcwuitney.com, postmaster@jcwyitney.com, postmaster@jfwhitney.com, postmaster@jjcwhitney.com, postmaster@mcwhitney.com, postmaster@ncwhitney.com, postmaster@ucwhitney.com, and postmaster@partatrain.com. Also on March 7, 2013, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 April 4, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Evidence of Aliases:

Respondent has registered each of the 23 Disputed Domain Name(s) cited in Section 4(a) (defined below) using falsified contact information in an attempt to frustrate the UDRP process which has historically required complaints to be filed against a single respondent. However, it is a straightforward matter to demonstrate conclusively that all of the Disputed Domain Name(s) are, in fact, controlled by a single entity. Under the auspices of UDRP Supplemental Rule 4(e) enacted by NAF, this complaint alleges that although the Disputed Domain Name(s) appear to be registered to different registrants, they are in fact registered to aliases of a single entity -- the Respondent.

Complainant’s authorized representative in this proceeding, CitizenHawk, has conducted extensive research and collected exhaustive data on a number of entities that repeatedly appeared in lists of typographical error domain name registrations for e-commerce brands. After documentation and examination, CitizenHawk presents the following facts to support that these numerous entities are actually the work of a single entity.

This entity engages in sophisticated processes of registering confusingly similar domain names using no less than 22 different aliases and a variety of website uses, including but not limited to, pay-per-click websites, and advertiser affiliate abuse. However, there are commonalities across all of the registrations if examined in the context of a few simple principals that, while taken individually seem innocuous, but grouped together is neither accidental nor coincidence.

The Respondents in this case share the same name as respondents in NAF Claim No. FA1007001337662, which held that they are the same Respondent;

All of the disputed domains were registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.;
The 23 disputed domains were registered on two dates: 22 domains registered on October 28, 2004, and 1 domain on August 24, 2006 (an indication of bulk registrations).

Three sets of the DNS are similar among all the Disputed Domain Name(s), NS01.DOMAINCONTROL.COM, NS1.NEWMDI.COM, and NS1.DSREDIRECTION.COM.

The method of monetizing (converting navigation traffic into revenue) 19 of the Disputed Domain Name(s) is similar, if not exactly the same, if examined specifically by the trademark registration from which the names most closely resemble. In other words, the entity custom tailors the traffic by brand in order to maximize the monetary gains from the domain names.
The traffic forwarding mechanism for 19 Disputed Domain Name(s) is provided by NewMDI.com located at http://www.newmdi.com. The forwarding function can be observed through the use of an HTTP Viewer, like the one found at www.rexswain.com. The service provided by these types of companies allows the Respondent to cloak the origin of the traffic, making it difficult for the affiliate network to detect fraudulent activity. The landing pages for all of the 19 Disputed Domain Name(s) all redirect to Complainant’s websites through Complainant’s affiliate programs.
The Disputed Domains names are all typographical errors of the Complainant’s primary websites, <JCWHITNEY.COM>, AND <PARTSTRAIN.COM>.

JC Whitney Affiliate Program

Respondent has caused 19 of the 23 Disputed Domain Names to route through the Complainant’s affiliate marketing program with Google Affiliate Network (GAN). All affiliate marketing programs require the inbound traffic to be tagged with the account ID to which it should credit any revenue generated by a sale or lead. Google Affiliate Network is no different as shown below:

HTTP Analyzer Screenshot example showing the affiliate ID

As shown in the example above, this publisher ID is PUBID=21000000000042084 and can easily be seen in the transcripts which are captured by CitizenHawk while automatically collecting screenshots of the Disputed Domain Name(s). The publisher ID is not embedded at the end of the last sequence in the browser session, as in the US Auto Parts affiliate browser. In addition, Google Affiliate Network (GAN) administers the JC WHITNEY affiliate program and makes payments to the same entity as indicated in the HTTP Analyzer feed of each Disputed Domain Name(s) with the marker http://gan.doubleclick.net/gan_click?lid=41000000024345614&pubid=21000000000042084&ganlegacy=1. The corresponding pages through the use of an HTTP Analyzer which shows that although it would appear that 19 different registrants have registered typographical errors, the money trail clearly points to a single account for which revenue is attributed. Respondent is fraudulently earning a commission each time a customer makes a purchase after accidentally visiting one of the Disputed Domain Name(s). This deceptive tactic is specifically prohibited by the contractual affiliate agreement between Complainant and Respondent.

Screenshot example of transcript which shows the traffic forwarded through the redirect for both affiliate programs.

http://www.newmdi.com.

We can only conclude that since 19 of the Disputed Domain Name(s) are using the same affiliate name and/or ID in each affiliate program and using the same traffic forwarding mechanism, the Respondents are one in the same. In addition, the Respondent has employed the use of false contact information to frustrate the UDRP process to avoid responsibility for their deceptive actions in order to continue profiting from typographical errors based on Complainant’s website.

In regards to the remaining 1 Disputed Domain Name, reflecting the PARTS TRAIN mark, while not reflecting an Affiliate ID, the fact that they are mistype-variations of the Complainant’s Marks, are identified aliases of the same Respondent, were registered with the same Registrar and identified bulk registrations, points to a preponderance of evidence that they are the same Respondent.

Cross referencing the patterns and commonalities documented above with the Disputed Domains Name(s) have one very simple implication - all of the Disputed Domain Name(s) belong to a single entity, the Respondent, for the sole purpose of continued profiting from typographical errors of Complainant’s Trademarks, JC WHITNEY and PARTS TRAIN.

In conclusion, all of the Disputed Domain Name(s) should be considered as being controlled by a single entity for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of the NAF UDRP Supplemental Rule 4(e). There is overwhelming evidence that the Respondent has used these aliases with the bad faith intent of avoiding responsibility for fraudulently profiting from Complainant’s rights in the Marks.

Complainant’s JC WHITNEY Mark

[i.] JCWHITNEY for on-line retailing and wholesale distributorship services, retail store services, catalog mail order services and telephone order services, all in the field of automotive parts, supplies, tools and accessories; providing information, via a website on a global computer network, on automotive parts, supplies, tools and accessories for sale (U.S. Reg. No. 2,569,233); and

[ii.] JC WHITNEY for on-line retailing and wholesale distributorship services, retail store services, catalog mail order services and telephone order services, all in the field of automotive parts, supplies, tools and accessories; providing consumer information in the field of automotive parts, automotive supplies, and automotive tools all via the internet (3,068,025);

Complainant’s PARTS TRAIN Mark

[i.] PARTS TRAIN for retail automobile parts and accessories stores (3,389,370);

The marks cited above are hereafter referred to as the "Marks".

FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds:

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., collectively with its subsidiaries, (“Complainant”) is a leading online provider of aftermarket auto parts. Complainant launched its first website in 2000 and currently receives the majority of its revenues from a network of websites and online marketplaces. The flagship websites are located at www.autopartswarehouse.com, www.partstrain.com, www.jcwhitney.com and www.stylintrucks.com. The corporate website is located at www.usautoparts.net.

Complainant, established in 1995, is a Delaware Corporation and is headquartered in Carson, California. The Company also has employees located in, Kansas, Virginia, Illinois and Ohio, as well as in the Philippines.

In August 2010, Complainant acquired Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts (“ASAP”). ASAP is the holding company of Whitney Automotive Group. Whitney Automotive Group was established in 1915 and is best known for the JC Whitney brand.

Through the acquisition of Whitney Automotive Group, Complainant has expanded its product-lines and increased its customer reach. As a result, Complainant’s business has grown since 2000. For the fiscal year 2011, the Company generated net sales of $327.1 million, compared with $262.3 million for fiscal 2010, representing an increase of 25%. Complainant is a publicly traded corporation (NasdaqGS: PRTS )

In addition to continued growth complainant also received the following recognitions:

o U.S. Auto Parts Network, No. 91 in the Internet Retailer Top 500 Guide 2010

o U.S. Auto Parts Network, No. 59 in the Internet Retailer Top 500 Guide April 2011

o U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. was ranked 13th in Deloitte's prestigious Technology Fast 50 Program for Los Angeles.

Complainant owns the Marks cited) above for which it maintains federal trademark registrations. None of these federal trademark registrations have been abandoned, cancelled, or revoked with the USPTO. Each of these filings has become incontestable through the filing of Section 8 and 15 affidavits with the USPTO.

[a.]

The Disputed Domain Name(s) are nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's Marks.

i.	By virtue of its federal trademark and/or service mark registrations, Complainant is the owner of the Complainant's Mark(s). See, e.g., United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, NAF Claim No. FA0707001036202 ("Panels have long recognized Complainant's registration of a mark with a trademark authority is sufficient to confer rights in the mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i)"). As in other cases, it is also important to note that it is irrelevant for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i) whether Complainant registered the mark in the country where Respondent operates or resides. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that a mark be registered in the country in which a respondent operates, it being sufficient that a complainant can demonstrate rights in a mark in some jurisdiction).
ii. iii. iv.	Although the Complainant’s trademark PARTS TRAIN, was not registered until after the registration of the Disputed Domain Name(s) partatrain.com, the Complainant’s first use in commerce on March 19, 2003, registration of Complainant’s primary website(s) March 31, 2004, and press releases of the brand prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name(s) should be considered in determining prior rights. The Panel should refer to the passage in paragraph 1.4 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (accessible on the WIPO website), which reads: “1.4 Does the complainant have UDRP-relevant trademark rights in a mark that was registered, or in which the complainant acquired unregistered rights, after the disputed domain name was registered? The consensus view is that the registration of a domain name before a complainant acquires trademark rights in a name does not prevent a finding of identity or confusing similarity. The UDRP makes no specific reference to the date of which the owner of the trade or service mark acquired rights……”, see Madrid 2012, S.A. v. Scott Martin-Madrid Man Websites, WIPO Case No. D2003-0598, <2m12.com> inter alia; Esquire Innovations, Inc. v. Iscrub.com c/o Whois Identity Shield; and Vertical Axis, Inc, Domain Adminstrator, WIPO Case No. D2007-0856, <iscrub.com>. In addition to the above, although the Complainant did not have a registered trademark or service mark matching the Disputed Domain Name(s), this fact standing alone is not fatal to a finding of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy. According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, common law rights are sufficient to support a domain name complaint. To establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant must show that its mark has acquired secondary meaning, i.e., that the public associates the asserted mark with complainant's goods and services. See First Place Financial Corp. v. Michele Dinoia c/o SZK.com, FA 506772 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 22, 2005). ICANN Panels have found relevant evidence of secondary meaning to include "length and amount of sales under the mark, the nature and extent of advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition". Candy Direct, Inc. v. italldirect2u.com, FA 514784 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 22, 2005). It is well settled that the term "trademark or service mark" as used in Paragraph 4(a)(i) encompasses both registered marks and common law marks. See also, e.g., The British Broadcasting Corporation v. Jaime Renteria, WIPO Case No. D2000 0050; United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Domains for Sale Inc. WIPO Case No. D2002 0005, The Professional Golfers' Association of America v. Golf Fitness Inc., a/k/a Golf Fitness Association, WIPO Case No. D2001 0218. To further stress, the Complainant has also established its rights in the mark(s), PARTS TRAIN, under Policy ¶4(a)(i), dating back to November 30, 2005, the filing dates of the trademark registration. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements 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); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO “date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent’s registration”) See also Quibids Holdings LLC v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1201001426801 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 13, 2012).
v.	When comparing the Disputed Domain Name(s) to the Complainant's Mark(s), the relevant comparison to be made is between only the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name(s) and the Complainant's Mark(s). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Mc Crady, WIPO Case No.D2000-0429 (finding that the top-level domain, such as ".net" or ".com", does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., NAF Claim No. FA0304000153545 ("[t]he addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.")
vi.	The Disputed Domain Name(s) (is/are) confusingly similar to Complainant's Mark(s) because (it/they) differ(s) by only a single character from Complainant's Mark(s), or because it differs by only the juxtaposition of two characters when compared to Complainant's Mark(s). For clarification, the Disputed Domain Name(s) contain(s) either: [i.] the addition of one extra character, or... [ii.] the removal of one character, or... [iii.] one character which is incorrect, or... [iv.] two juxtaposed characters as compared to Complainant's Mark(s).
vii. viii. ix.	The Disputed Domain Name(s) (is/are), simply put, a classic example of "typosquatting". The practice of typosquatting is designed to take advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, which means the names must be confusingly similar by design. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441 (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); Caterpillar Inc. v. Center for Ban on Drugs, NAF Claim No. FA0603000661437 ("the omission of a single letter from Complainant's mark does not adequately distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark"); and Victoria's Secret v. Zuccarini, NAF Claim No. FA0010000095762 (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 the complainant's marks). The Disputed Domain Name(s) vary from the mark(s) by the inclusion, subtraction or substitution of a single character, or the rearranging of characters. Such minimal alteration has been commonly referred to in prior UDRP cases as typosquatting, whereby respondents have hoped to capitalize on Internet user typing errors to gain traffic from users looking for connections to trademarked goods or services. The consensus opinion of those prior cases is that such minor differences do not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the names in dispute and the corresponding mark. See Gaiam, Inc. v. Domain Mgmt. SPM, FA 1237207 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 19, 2009) (“…the addition of letters or substitution of letters for other characters fails to create a meaningful distinction—the sole product is a typographical error.”); see also Ross-Simons, Inc. v. Domain.Contact, D2003-0994 (WIPO Mar. 3, 2004) (“‘Typosquatting’ is a practice in which a respondent registers domain names with slight misspellings of a complainant's mark to divert internet traffic. There are a substantial number of panel decisions which have found that such domain names are confusingly similar to the marks which they misspell.”). Respondent may contend that the Disputed Domain Name(s) is/ are comprised of common, descriptive or generic terms and as such cannot be identical to Complainant’s mark. However, such a determination is not necessary under Policy ¶4(a)(i). This portion of the Policy considers only whether Complainant has rights in the mark and whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2007) (finding that because the complainant had received a trademark registration for its VANCE mark, the respondent’s argument that the term was generic failed under Policy ¶4(a)(i)); see also David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Respondent’s argument that each individual word in the mark is unprotectable and therefore the overall mark is unprotectable is at odds with the anti-dissection principle of trademark law.”). See past UDRP decisions where the panel has decided in favor of the Complainant’s mark, The Knot, Inc. v. Privacy Ltd. Disclosed Agent for YOLAPT, NAF: FA1010001350443.

[b.]

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name(s) for the following reasons:

ii.

iii.

Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name(s). See Policy, ¶4(c)(ii). Where, as here, "the WHOIS information suggests Respondent is known as" an entity other than the trademark associated with Complainant, and Complainant has not "licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register domain names incorporating Complainant's... mark," a Panel should find that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, NAF Claim No. FA0707001036202.

Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way.

Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant's Mark in a domain name.

iv.	A "Cease and Desist" letter was sent to the Respondent. The letter informed the Respondent that it was infringing on Complainant's IP rights and allowed the Respondent the opportunity to respond if they have any IP rights. The Respondent was provided with the information of the Complainant's trademark(s), hence showing proof that the Complainant has rights to the brand(s). To date, no reply has been received from Respondent. 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, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint."). Also in WIPO case ACCOR v. Pham Manh Ha, Case No. D2007-1855, the panel found that the evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that name.
v.	Respondent has ignored Complainant's attempts to resolve the dispute outside of this administrative proceeding. Complainant notes that if the owner of the Disputed Domain Name(s) fails to respond to this Complaint, it is presumed that the owner has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name(s). See Mattel, Inc. v. Rave Club Berlin, FA106115 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2002), citing Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents' failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names). Further, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) states that when "the complainant has made a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to show by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interest in the domain name at issue."
vi. vii.	Respondent is using (some or all of) the Disputed Domain Name(s) to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business. Presumably, Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from these linked websites. As such, Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name(s) to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services as allowed under Policy; 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as allowed under Policy; 4(c)(iii). See 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24HourNames.com-Quality Domains For Sale, FA 187429 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 26, 2003) (holding that Respondent's use of the 24hrsfitness.com.gt, 24-hourfitness.com.gt and 24hoursfitness.com.gt, domain names to redirect Internet users to a website featuring advertisements and links to Complainant's competitors could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the respondent's website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names). The Respondent has caused 3 of the Disputed Domain Name(s) to resolve to an empty page featuring no substantive content or links is further evidence that Respondent's failure to actively use the Disputed Domain Name(s) suggests a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name(s) as blank pages are neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”); see also Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Apr. 12, 2007) (finding that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in a confusingly similar domain name that it had not made demonstrable preparations to use since its registration seven months prior to the complaint).
viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii.	*In reference to Complainant’s JC WHITNEY Mark:* The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s) was October 28, 2004, which is significantly after Complainant's first use in commerce April 1, 1947, as specified in their relevant registration with the USPTO. The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s) was October 28, 2004 which is significantly after Complainant's registration of their relevant Marks with the USPTO on May 14, 2002. The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s) was October 28, 2004, which is significantly after Complainant's registration of JCWHITNEY.COM on September 24, 1998. *In reference to Complainant’s PARTS TRAIN Mark:* The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s) was August 24, 2006, which is significantly after Complainant's first use in commerce March 19, 2003, as specified in their relevant registration with the USPTO. The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s) was August 24, 2006, which is significantly after Complainant's trademark filing date as specified in their relevant registration with the USPTO on November 30, 2005. The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s) was August 24, 2006 which is significantly after Complainant's registration of PARTSTRAIN.COM on March 31, 2004.

[c.]

The Domain Name(s) should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith for the following reasons:

Respondent's typosquatting behavior is, in and of itself, evidence of bad faith. See Canadian Tire Corp. v. domain adm'r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because the respondent created a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site or location'.. . through Respondent's persistent practice of 'typosquatting'"); see also Nat'l Ass'n of Prof'l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) ("Typosquatting ... is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] 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.").

ii.

iii.

iv.

Respondent's bad faith is further shown by the Respondent using the Disputed Domain Name(s) website in connection with generating revenue as a "click through" website, by using the Complainant's registered trademark(s) and providing links to the services and products offered by the Complainant to take advantage of Complainant's well known mark to achieve a wrongful competitive advantage and commercial gain. In WIPO Decision D2008-1470, AIDA Cruises German Branch of Societa di Crociere Mercurio S.r.l., v. Caribbean Online International Ltd. / Belgium Domains "the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name for the purposes of commercial gain by offering links to other companies' websites related to cruises and travels, in the form of a "clickthrough" website. In similar cases, many prior panel decisions have recognised [sic] that the registration of domain names to be used in a "click-through" website has to be considered as an evidence of bad faith (see, e.g. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation., WIPO Case No. D2007-0440; Early Times Distillers Company v. IP Admin / DNAV ASSOCS, WIPO Case No. D2007-1812; HBOS Plc v. Whois Protection, WIPO Case No. D2007-1605)".

To further stress the above, Respondent’s setting up of a “click through” website for which it likely receives revenue for each misdirected Internet user obviously demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith. The Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name(s) in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name(s) to attract and mislead consumers for its own profit. 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). See also Meadowbrook, L.L.C. d/b/a The Land of Nod v. Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited, Claim Number: FA1112001419361 and Charlotte Russe Merchandising, Inc. v. Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft / Domain Admin, Claim Number: FA1204001439309, where the same behavior of bad faith is demonstrated and agreed by the panel, pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).

In addition to the above, the Respondent’s advertised pay-per-click links displayed on the resolving websites promotes products that compete with Complainant. These links therefore divert potential customers away from Complainant to third-party websites, which disrupts Complainant’s business. The Panel should find that this effort to divert consumers and disrupt Complainant’s business is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where the respondent’s website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to the complainant’s website, the respondent’s use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy ¶4(b)(iii)).

Respondent is using (some or all of) the Disputed Domain Name(s) to redirect Internet users to Complainant's own website through Complainant's affiliate program, which is in direct violation of the affiliate agreement which governs Respondent's relationship as an affiliate of Complainant. As a member of Complainant's affiliate program, Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in Complainant's Mark(s) when registering the Disputed Domain Name(s). By registering confusingly similar domain names while a member of this affiliate program, Respondent has attempted to opportunistically benefit from its registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name(s) at Complainant's expense. Respondent's registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name(s) while a member of Complainant's affiliate program constitutes additional evidence of bad faith under Policy 4(a)(iii). See Cricket Communc'ns, Inc. v. Oliver, FA 954005 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent registered domain names containing the complainant's mark after enrolling in the complainant's affiliate program); see also Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv) by redirecting its users to the complainant's domain name, thus receiving a commission from the complainant through its affiliate program).

vi.

Although 3 of the Disputed Domain Name(s) are currently inactive sites, in past cases the Panel noted that the word "use" in this context does not require a positive act on the part of the Respondent; passively holding a domain name can constitute use in bad faith. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) ("[I]t is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith"); Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the Respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose); Nike, Inc. v. Coleman, D2000-1120 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2000) (same).In this case, the Respondent has made no use of the Disputed Domain Name(s) in question.

vii.

Respondent has caused the website(s) reachable by (some or all of) the Disputed Domain Name(s) to display Complainant's Mark(s) spelled correctly (even though the domain name(s) (is/are) a misspelled version of the same mark(s)). This serves as further evidence of bad faith intent because it removes any doubt as to whether or not the misspelling was intentionally designed to improperly capitalize on Complainant's famous Mark(s).

viii.

Respondent has caused the websites reachable by (some or all of) the Disputed Domain Name(s) to display content and/or keywords directly related to Complainant's business. This serves as further evidence of bad faith intent because it removes any doubt as to whether or not the misspelling was intentionally designed to improperly capitalize on Complainant's famous Mark and its related business.

ix.	Respondent is a recalcitrant, serial cybersquatter / typosquatter. Searches through the NAF and WIPO UDRP decision databases reveal that Respondent has engaged in an ongoing pattern of such behavior.

Respondent holds registrations on other domain names that appear to be straightforward examples of typosquatting. Although those names are not directly involved in this complaint, they serve as further evidence of bad faith intent on the part of Respondent. See Policy, 4(b)(ii) and Time Warner Inc. v. Zone MP3, NAF Claim No. FA0706001008035 (typosquatting combined with registration of as few as four domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to "protected marks" is sufficient to establish a pattern leading to bad faith). See also Citigroup Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, NAF Claim No. FA0704000964679.

xi.

Respondent's use of apparently falsified and/or incomplete WHOIS contact information demonstrates a desire to avoid being held accountable, which serves as further evidence of bad faith intent. See, e.g., Time Warner Inc. v. AOLMEMBERS.COM et al., NAF Claim No. FA0701000881337 ("fictitious or false WHOIS information about both the registrant's name and physical address... raises the presumption of bad faith registration and use").

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant contends that although the disputed domain names appear to be registered to different registrants, they are in fact registered to aliases of a single entity—the Respondent. Complainant alleges the following common elements across all of the registrations:

1) The Respondents in this case share the same name as respondents in NAF Claim No. FA1007001337662, which held that they are the same Respondent;

2) All of the disputed domain names were registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.;

3) The 23 disputed domains were registered on two dates: 22 domains registered on October 28, 2004, and 1 domain on August 24, 2006 (an indication of bulk registrations);

4) Three sets of the DNS are similar among all the disputed domain names, NS01.DOMAINCONTROL.COM, NS1.NEWMDI.COM, and NS1.DSREDIRECTION.COM;

5) The method of monetizing (converting navigation traffic into revenue) 19 of the disputed domain names is similar, if not exactly the same, if examined specifically by the trademark registration from which the names most closely resemble. In other words, the entity custom tailors the traffic by brand in order to maximize the monetary gains from the domain names;

6) The traffic forwarding mechanism for 19 disputed domain names is provided by NewMDI.com located at http://www.newmdi.com. The forwarding function can be observed through the use of an HTTP Viewer, like the one found at www.rexswain.com. The service provided by these types of companies allows the Respondent to cloak the origin of the traffic, making it difficult for the affiliate search to detect fraudulent activity. The landing pages for all of the 19 disputed domain names all redirect to Complainant’s websites through Complainant’s affiliate programs;

7) The disputed domain names are all typographical errors of Complainant’s primary websites, <JCWHITNEY.COM>, and <PARTSTRAIN.COM>.

Based upon this evidence (which is supported by Respondent’s failure to deny it), the Panel finds Complainant has presented sufficient evidence the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity and thus chooses to proceed with the instant proceedings.

FINDINGS

(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.

DISCUSSION

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."

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:

(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.

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.”).

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. claims it is a leading online provider of aftermarket auto parts. Complainant launched its first website in 2000 and currently receives the majority of its revenues from a network of websites and online marketplaces. Complainant’s flagship websites are located at <www.autopartswarehouse.com>, <www.partstrain.com>, <www.jcwhitney.com>, and <www.stylintrucks.com>. In August of 2010, Complainant acquired Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts (“ASAP”). ASAP is the holding company of Whitney Automotive Group. Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for JC WHITNEY mark (Reg. No. 3,068,025, registered March 14, 2005) and for the PARTS TRAIN mark (Reg. No. 3,389,370, registered February 26, 2008). Complainant does not need to register its mark in Respondent’s country. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates and it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction). The Panel finds Complainant’s registration of the JC WHITNEY and PARTS TRAIN marks with the USPTO sufficiently establishes its rights in the marks under Policy ¶4(a)(i).

Complainant claims Respondent’s <icwhitney.com>, <jcahitney.com>, <jccwhitney.com>, <jcewhitney.com>, <jcwaitney.com>, <jcwbitney.com>, <jcwhidney.com>, <jcwhiitney.com>, <jcwhitneh.com>, <jcwhitnei.com>, <jcwhitneyi.com>, <jcwhitneyy.com>, <jcwhitnsy.com>, <jcwhjtney.com>, <jcwnitney.com>, <jcwuitney.com>, <jcwyitney.com>, <jfwhitney.com>, <jjcwhitney.com>, <mcwhitney.com>, <ncwhitney.com>, <ucwhitney.com>, and <partatrain.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because they differ by only a single character from Complainant’s marks. Respondent substitutes a letter in Complainant’s JC WHITNEY or PARTS TRAIN mark for another letter in the <icwhitney.com>, <jcahitney.com>, <jcwaitney.com>, <jcwbitney.com>, <jcwhidney.com>, <jcwhitneh.com>, <jcwhitnei.com>, <jcwhitnsy.com>, <jcwhjtney.com>, <jcwnitney.com>, <jcwuitney.com>, <jcwyitney.com>, <jfwhitney.com>,<ncwhitney.com>, <ucwhitney.com>, and <partatrain.com> domain names. The substitution of letters in a domain name does not distinguish Respondent’s domain names from Complainant’s marks under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”). Respondent adds a letter to Complainant’s JC WHITNEY mark in the <jccwhitney.com>, <jcewhitney.com>, <jcwhiitney.com>, <jcwhitneyi.com>, <jcwhitneyy.com>, <jjcwhitney.com> domain names. The addition of a letter to a mark does not differentiate Respondent’s domain names from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Ikhizamah, D2002-1168 (WIPO Mar. 17, 2003) (holding that the <zamazon.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AMAZON.COM mark). Respondent adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the disputed domain names. The addition of a gTLD to a disputed domain name is inconsequential to Policy ¶4(a)(i) because it (or a ccTLD) is a required element for a domain name. See Starwood Capital Grp. Global LLC v. Resort Realty, FA 1043061 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 6, 2007) (“Furthermore, the addition of the generic top-level domain ‘.com’ does nothing to eliminate the confusing similarity, as a top-level domain is a requirement for all domain names.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds Respondent’s <icwhitney.com>, <jcahitney.com>, <jccwhitney.com>, <jcewhitney.com>, <jcwaitney.com>, <jcwbitney.com>, <jcwhidney.com>, <jcwhiitney.com>, <jcwhitneh.com>, <jcwhitnei.com>, <jcwhitneyi.com>, <jcwhitneyy.com>, <jcwhitnsy.com>, <jcwhjtney.com>, <jcwnitney.com>, <jcwuitney.com>, <jcwyitney.com>, <jfwhitney.com>, <jjcwhitney.com>, <mcwhitney.com>, <ncwhitney.com>, <ucwhitney.com>, and <partatrain.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s JCWHITNEY and PARTS TRAIN marks pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case 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 has 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.”).

Complainant claims Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information identifies “Alichec Inc. / Alex Ovechkin / Balram Brahmin / Belroots Pty Ltd / Chin-Hui Wu / David Ghou / Denesh Kumar / Denholm Borg / Domain Administrator / Elarson & Associates Pty Ltd / Liquid SEO Limited / Luchichang Pty Ltd / Marcelos Vainez / Loshedina Inc / Netmilo / Oleg Techino / Orel Hlasek LLC / Vlad Obchikov / Web Pescados LLC / Webatopia Marketing Limited / WuWeb Pty Ltd / ZincFusion Limited” as the registrant of the disputed domain names. Complainant claims (without contradiction) these are fictitious names. Complainant claims Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark in a domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

Complainant claims Respondent is using some of the disputed domain names to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s business. Respondent’s <icwhitney.com>, <jccwhitney.com>, <jcewhitney.com>, <jcwaitney.com>, <jcwbitney.com>, <jcwhiitney.com>, <jcwhitneh.com>, <jcwhitnei.com>, <jcwhitneyi.com>, <jcwhitneyy.com>, <jcwhitnsy.com>, <jcwhjtney.com>, <jcwnitney.com>, <jcwyitney.com>, <jfwhitney.com>, <jjcwhitney.com>, <mcwhitney.com>, <ncwhitney.com>, <ucwhitney.com>, and <partatrain.com> domain names resolve to websites that feature links such as “Fuel Saving Products,” “For Your Motorcycle,” “Helmets,” and others. Respondent is presumably receiving pay-per-click fees from these linked websites. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names solely to provide links to third-party websites is not a Policy ¶4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services or a Policy ¶4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (finding that, because the “[r]espondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website featuring a series of advertising links to various third-parties, many of whom offer products and services in direct competition with those offered under [the complainant’s] mark,” the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

Respondent has caused 3 of the disputed domain names to resolve to an empty page featuring no substantive content or links. Respondent’s <jcahitney.com>, <jcwhidney.com>, and <jcwuitney.com> domain names link to a webpage that says “Server not found.” Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain names (under the facts of this case) evidences Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). See 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)).

Furthermore, Respondent cannot acquire any rights to the domain names because it has falsified its registration information, in violation of the UDRP.

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant claims Respondent is a recalcitrant, serial cybersquatter / typosquatter. Searches through the NAF and WIPO UDRP decision databases reveal Respondent has engaged in an ongoing pattern of such behavior. BuySeasons, Inc. v. Oleg Techino a/k/a Oleg Techino a/k/a Balram Brahmin c/o Balram Brahmin a/k/a Belroots Pty Ltd c/o Luis de Carvalho a/k/a Chin-Hui Wu c/o Chin-Hui Wu a/k/a Denesh Kumar c/o Denesh Kumar a/k/a Denholm Borg c/o Denholm Borg a/k/a Elarson & Associates Pty Ltd c/o Eric Larson c/o Domain Administrator a/k/a Lidnick Webcorp Inc c/o Lidnick Webcorp a/k/a Liquid SEO Limited c/o Julian Greenberg a/k/a Loshedina Inc c/o Xi Na a/k/a Luchichang Pty Ltd c/o/ Luchichang Luchichang a/k/a Marcelos Vainez c/o Marcelos Vainez a/k/a Netmilo c/o Stoyan Bagdanov a/k/a Orel Hlasek LLC c/o Orel Hlasek a/k/a Vlad Obchikov c/o Vlad Obchikov a/k/a Volchar Pty Ltd c/o Domain Administrator a/k/a Web Pescados LLC c/o Augustine Rivera a/k/a Webaoptia Marketing Limited c/o Michael Short a/k/a Alex Ovechkin a/k/a WuWub Pty Ltd c/o Michael Chung Wu a/k/a ZincFusion Limited c/o Vivian Cox, FA 1337662 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2010) and others. Regrettably, this is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith registration and use of the domain names. Complainant has not been denied the use of its mark in a domain name.

Complainant claims Respondent’s advertised pay-per-click links displayed on the resolving websites promotes products that compete with Complainant. Respondent’s <icwhitney.com>, <jccwhitney.com>, <jcewhitney.com>, <jcwaitney.com>, <jcwbitney.com>, <jcwhiitney.com>, <jcwhitneh.com>, <jcwhitnei.com>, <jcwhitneyi.com>, <jcwhitneyy.com>, <jcwhitnsy.com>, <jcwhjtney.com>, <jcwnitney.com>, <jcwyitney.com>, <jfwhitney.com>, <jjcwhitney.com>, <mcwhitney.com>, <ncwhitney.com>, <ucwhitney.com>, and <partatrain.com> domain names resolve to websites that feature links such as “Fuel Saving Products,” “For Your Motorcycle,” “Helmets,” and others. Complainant claims these links divert potential customers away from Complainant to third-party websites, which disrupts Complainant’s business. Respondent also manipulates Complainant’s affiliate program to gain a monetary advantage. This Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (“The disputed domain names resolve to websites that list links to competitors of Complainant, evidence that Respondent intends to disrupt Complainant’s business, a further indication of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii).”).

Complainant argues Respondent is using the disputed domain names website in connection with generating revenue as a “click through” website by using Complainant’s registered trademarks and providing links to the services and products offered by Complainant. The Respondent’s <icwhitney.com>, <jccwhitney.com>, <jcewhitney.com>, <jcwaitney.com>, <jcwbitney.com>, <jcwhiitney.com>, <jcwhitneh.com>, <jcwhitnei.com>, <jcwhitneyi.com>, <jcwhitneyy.com>, <jcwhitnsy.com>, <jcwhjtney.com>, <jcwnitney.com>, <jcwyitney.com>, <jfwhitney.com>, <jjcwhitney.com>, <mcwhitney.com>, <ncwhitney.com>, <ucwhitney.com>, and <partatrain.com> domain names resolve to websites that feature links such as “Fuel Saving Products,” “For Your Motorcycle,” “Helmets,” and others. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s setting up of a “click through” website for which it likely receives revenue for each misdirected Internet user demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to generate revenue and to misdirect Internet users demonstrates bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”).

Complainant claims Respondent is using some of the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s own website through Complainant’s affiliate program. Complainant identifies Exhibit M as a copy of the affiliate agreement between Complainant and Respondent, which does not seem to be true when the document is actually read. Despite the fact Complainant has not provided substantive evidence of an affiliate agreement, the Panel finds Respondent has fraudulently manipulated Complainant’s affiliate program to gain a monetary advantage.

Complainant claims 3 of the disputed domain names are currently inactive sites. Respondent’s <jcahitney.com>, <jcwhidney.com>, and <jcwuitney.com> domain names link to a webpage that says “Server not found.” Respondent’s failure to make an active use of 3 of the disputed domain names (without more) does not adequately demonstrate bad faith use and registration under 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).

However, Respondent has provided false contact information for its registration of all of its domain names. This Panel cannot conceive of a good faith reason for doing so in a commercial context. This raises the rebuttable presumption of bad faith registration and use. Respondent has done nothing to rebut this presumption.

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered the <icwhitney.com>, <jcahitney.com>, <jccwhitney.com>, <jcewhitney.com>, <jcwaitney.com>, <jcwbitney.com>, <jcwhidney.com>, <jcwhiitney.com>, <jcwhitneh.com>, <jcwhitnei.com>, <jcwhitneyi.com>, <jcwhitneyy.com>, <jcwhitnsy.com>, <jcwhjtney.com>, <jcwnitney.com>, <jcwuitney.com>, <jcwyitney.com>, <jfwhitney.com>, <jjcwhitney.com>, <mcwhitney.com>, <ncwhitney.com>, <ucwhitney.com>, and <partatrain.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist

Dated: Wednesday, April 17, 2013