Dell Inc. v. iLap co., ltd
Claim Number: FA1307001512326
Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Wendy C. Larson of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is iLap co., ltd (“Respondent”), Vietnam.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <alienware-store.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 30, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 30, 2013.
On July 31, 2013, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <alienware-store.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 August 2, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 22, 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@alienware-store.com. Also on August 2, 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 August 29, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant is a world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services.
Complainant owns the ALIENWARE mark which denotes a line of Complainant’s custom computer gaming hardware and systems. Complainant owns trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the ALIENWARE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,616,204 registered Sep. 10, 2002).
The <alienware-store.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the ALIENWARE mark in its entirety, merely taking on the word “store” and the generic top-level domain “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the ALIENWARE mark. Additionally, Respondent has not made use of the <alienware-store.com> domain name in a way which would afford protection under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). Respondent uses the disputed domain name to display a banner including Complainant’s mark and logo as well as links to websites offering Complainant’s competitors’ products. Respondent also purports to offer ALIENWARE branded products.
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s prominent use of the ALIENWARE mark for a commercial retail website is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the ALIENWARE mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Respondent’s bad faith is also evidenced by the links to sales of Complainant’s competitors’ products that are displayed on the domain name’s website. Respondent must have been well aware of Complainant’s rights in the ALIENWARE mark at the time Respondent registered the <alienware-store.com> domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns a USPTO registered trademark for ALIENWARE.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use the ALIENWARE mark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in ALIENWARE.
Respondent uses the <alienware-store.com> domain name to address a website displaying a banner that includes Complainant’s mark and logo as well as links to websites offering ALIENWARE branded products and competing products.
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 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.
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.”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the ALIENWARE mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant need not register its mark where Respondent operates to demonstrate such rights. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [Complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, Complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”); see also 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 <alienware-store.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire ALIENWARE mark. The mark is followed by a hyphen, the descriptive word “store” and the top level domain name “.com.” The resulting differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s mark are insufficient to distinguish the two for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <alienware-store.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALIENWARE mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the domain name.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond and since as discussed below there is no evidence supporting a finding pursuant to Policy 4(c) that Respondent has rights or interests in the at-issue domain name, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
WHOIS information identifies “iLap co., ltd” as the at-issue domain name’s registrant. Moreover, the record before the Panel contains no evidence that suggests Respondent is otherwise commonly known by the <alienware-store.com> domain name. The Panel thus concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of 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); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website displaying a banner including Complainant’s mark and logo as well as links to third party websites offering products from Complainant’s competitors and other products. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name for this purpose is neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name. 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).
In light of the uncontroverted evidence, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below Policy ¶4(b) bad faith circumstances are present and there is additional non-Policy ¶4(b) evidence from which the Panel may also conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
Respondent prominently uses Complainant’s ALIENWARE mark on its retail website, a website whose addressing domain name is confusingly similar to the ALIENWARE mark. Thereby, Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a false perception that the website’s Complainant sponsors, or endorses the website. Using the domain name in this manner demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Fossil Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000), (finding that the use of a domain name which is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to sell the products of the complainant is sure to cause an inference that there is a connection between the complainant and the disputed domain name, along with the products sold on it); see also AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALIENWARE trademark before registering the <alienware-store.com> domain name. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the fact that Respondent displays Complainant’s graphic logo and trademark on the <alienware-store.com> website, and further offers Complainant’s ALIENWARE branded products for sale. Registering and using a confusingly similar domain with knowledge of a complainant’s rights in such domain name indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alienware-store.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: August 29, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page