LifeLock Inc. v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft
Claim Number: FA1410001586005
Complainant is LifeLock Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California. Respondent is Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft (“Respondent”), St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <lifelockk.com>, <likelock.com> and <lofelock.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 21, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 21, 2014.
On October 22, 2014, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <lifelockk.com>, <likelock.com> and <lofelock.com> domain names are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 November 24, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 15, 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@lifelockk.com, postmaster@likelock.com, postmaster@lofelock.com. Also on November 24, 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 December 22, 2014 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant’s rights in LIFELOCK are demonstrated by its trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 3,346,847, registered Dec. 18, 2007, filed Nov. 10, 2006). Complainant uses the LIFELOCK mark in connection with identity theft protection systems. The <lifelockk.com>, <likelock.com>, and <lofelock.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the LIFELOCK mark as the domain names differ from the mark by a single substituted or added letter.
Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain names. Respondent is neither commonly known by these names, nor authorized by Complainant to utilize the LIFELOCK mark in domain names. The disputed domain names are used to redirect users to websites displaying links in competition with Complainant. Respondent presumably generates click-through profit from these links. Such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent has a documented history of bad faith, which continues in the instant case. Respondent’s bad faith is evident by its willingness to sell the disputed domain names for amounts in excess of out-of-pocket expenses. Further, Respondent’s use of the dispute domain names to direct users to competing identify theft services is demonstrative of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) bad faith. As Respondent is likely generating click-through profits from these competing links, Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) is also implicated. Respondent’s <lifelockk.com>, <likelock.com>, and <lofelock.com> domain names take advantage of common typing errors of the LIFELOCK mark, and should be considered typosquatting which is also indicative of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is LifeLock Inc. of Tempe, AZ, USA. LifeLock is the owner of domestic registrations for the mark LIFELOCK, and related marks, which it has used continuously since at least as early as 2005 in connection with its provision of identity theft products and services.
Respondent is Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Respondent’s registrar’s address is indicated as Beaverton, OR, USA. The disputed domain names were registered between April 10, 2007 and October 19, 2009.
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 uses the LIFELOCK mark in connection with identity theft protection systems. Complainant claims rights to LIFELOCK as demonstrated by its trademark registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,346,847, registered Dec. 18, 2007, filed Nov. 10, 2006). The Panel finds that Complainant’s USPTO registration indicates sufficient rights in the LIFELOCK mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), despite Respondent’s residence outside the United States. See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”).
Complainant argues the <lifelockk.com>, <likelock.com>, and <lofelock.com> domain names are confusing similar to the LIFELOCK mark. Complainant notes that these domain names differ from the mark by a single substituted or added letter, and the addition of the gTLD “.com.” The Panel notes that the addition of a gTLD carries no weight in the confusing similarity consideration. See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”). The Panel here finds that the addition or substitution of a single letter in an otherwise incorporated mark does not distinguish the domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), and therefore finds the <lifelockk.com>, <likelock.com>, and <lofelock.com> domain names confusing similar to the LIFELOCK mark. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. MGA LIMITED / mgaenterpriseslimited, FA 151503 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2013) (“Respondent’s <cheaptiekets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEAPTICKETS.COM mark, because the domain name merely replaces the letter ‘c’ in the word “tickets” with the letter ‘e.’”).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). The Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain names. In so arguing, Complainant claims that Respondent is neither commonly known by these names, nor authorized by Complainant to utilize the LIFELOCK mark in domain names. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information identifies “Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft” as the registrant of record for each domain name. In light of the available evidence, the Panel finds no basis to hold that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to 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).
Further, Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are used to redirect users to websites displaying links in competition with Complainant. Complainant adds that Respondent presumably generates click-through profit from these links. Complainant contends such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel notes that the subject landing pages promote links including “LifeLock® Identity Lock,” “Identity Fraud,” and “Norton Protection.” Prior panels have found no legitimate or protected use where the respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct users to links related to or competing with the complainant. 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). The Panel here finds that Respondent has made no bona fide offering as envisioned by Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As the Respondent has not provided a response to this action the Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s bad faith is evident by Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain names for amounts in excess of out-of-pocket expenses. The Panel notes that the associated WHOIS records show the <lifelockk.com> domain name for sale in the amount of $1,131, <likelock.com> for $2,866, and <lofelock.com> for $4,714. The Panel finds that Respondent’s offers to sell these domain names is suggestive of Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) bad faith to the extent that the prices exceed Respondent’s costs of purchasing the disputed domains. See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that the respondent registered and was using the <gwbakeries.mobi> domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where it offered it for sale for far more than its estimated out-of-pocket costs it incurred in initially registering the disputed domain name).
Complainant further asserts that Respondent has a documented history of bad faith. Complainant directs the Panel to several UDRP decisions where Respondent was found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith. See Alaska Air Group v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA 1560109 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 27, 2014); Mediacom Communications Corp. v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA 1561964 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 27, 2014); WordPress Foundation v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA 1577167 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2014). The Panel holds that these prior decisions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith as outlined by Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), and therefore finds Respondent is acting in bad faith under that provision.
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the dispute domain names to direct users to competing identify theft providers is demonstrative of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) bad faith. The Panel again notes that the disputed domain names resolve to promote links including “Identity Fraud,” and “Norton Protection.” The Panel finds that these links compete with Complainant’s own offers in the security field, and therefore disrupts Complainant’s services in violation of 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)).
Prior panels have found bad faith where the respondent seeks profit from a likelihood of Internet user confusion. For example, in Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006), the panel found the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a confusingly similar domain name to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant. Here, the Respondent promotes links such as “LifeLock® Identity Lock,” “Identity Fraud,” and “Norton Protection,” through the <lifelockk.com>, <likelock.com>, and <lofelock.com> domain names. The Panel here finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent uses the disputed domain names to promote commercial links both related to and in competition with Complainant.
Complainant also argues that Respondent’s <lifelockk.com>, <likelock.com>, and <lofelock.com> domain names take advantage of common typing errors of the LIFELOCK mark, and should be considered evidence of bad faith as typosquatting. Prior panels have found bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent registered a domain name, not out of the ingenuity of the respondent, but because that respondent saw a mark that could be manipulated to siphon Internet users to an unrelated website. For example, the panel in Indep. Ins. Agents & Brokers of Am., Inc. v. Liqian, FA 1582252 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2014), wrote, “Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name wishing and hoping that Internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string […] Respondent’s typosquatting is, in itself, evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.” The Panel again notes that the disputed domain names differ from the subject mark by a single substituted or added letter. The Panel here finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting, and that such behavior indicates Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.
The Complainant has proven this element.
Because the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lifelockk.com>, <likelock.com> and <lofelock.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: January 5, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page