LifeLock v. Sparta Trading S.A.
Claim Number: FA1408001577367
Complainant is LifeLock (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Sparta Trading S.A. (“Respondent”), United Arab Emirates.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <llifelock.com>, registered with Go France Domains, LLC.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 28, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 28, 2014.
On August 29, 2014, Go France Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <llifelock.com> domain name is registered with Go France Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go France Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go France Domains, 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 September 5, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 25, 2014 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@llifelock.com. Also on September 5, 2014, 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 September 30, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
Complainant, LifeLock, has been using the LIFELOCK mark in commerce since 2005 in connection with the sale of identity protection software and services. Complainant has a valid registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the LIFELOCK mark (Reg. No. 3,346,847, registered December 4, 2007). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights.
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
Respondent is not commonly known by the <llifelock.com> domain name. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website in violation of the parties’ affiliate agreement.
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
Respondent has offered the disputed domain name for sale. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website, which is a violation of its affiliate agreement with Complainant. Respondent’s use of typosquatting indicates bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, LifeLock, has been using the LIFELOCK mark in commerce since 2005 in connection with the sale of identity protection software and services. Complainant has a valid registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the LIFELOCK mark (Reg. No. 3,346,847, registered December 4, 2007).
Respondent, Sparta Trading S.A., registered the <llifelock.com> domain name on April 7, 2009. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website in violation of the parties’ affiliate agreement.
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.”).
Complainant has rights in the LIFELOCK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (determining that the complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Although Respondent resides in United Arab Emirates, it is irrelevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as Complainant need not register its mark in the country where Respondent operates. 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).
Respondent’s <llifelock.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LIFELOCK mark. The <llifelock.com> domain name uses the entirety of Complainant’s LIFELOCK mark with the mere addition of the letter “l” and the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
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), and 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).
Respondent is not commonly known by the <llifelock.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The WHOIS information lists the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Sparta Trading S.A.”. See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).
Respondent is using the <llifelock.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website in violation of the affiliate agreement. Therefore, Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Barnesandnoble.com LLC v. Your One Stop Web Shop, FA 670171 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to divert Internet users attempting to reach the complainant’s website and in breach of the complainant’s affiliate program is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The WHOIS lookup page for the <llifelock.com> domain name indicates that the domain name is for sale. Respondent’s general offer of the disputed domain name for sale is evidence of bad faith under 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).”).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website, which is a violation of its affiliate agreement with Complainant. Therefore, Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding the respondent registered and used the <deluxeform.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by redirecting its users to the complainant’s <deluxeforms.com> domain name, thus receiving a commission from the complainant through its affiliate program).
Respondent’s use of typosquatting is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Vanguard Group, Inc. v. IQ Mgmt. Corp., FA 328127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2004) (“By engaging in typosquatting, [r]espondent has registered and used the <vangard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <llifelock.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: October 14, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page