DOMINO’S IP HOLDER LLC v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services
Claim Number: FA1510001642097
Complainant is DOMINO’S IP HOLDER LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Hope V. Shovein of Brooks Kushman P.C., Michigan, United States. Respondent is Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services (“Respondent”), Chile.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <dominospizzajobs.com>, registered with Internet.bs Corp.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 12, 2015; the Forum received payment on October 12, 2015.
On October 14, 2015, Internet.bs Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dominospizzajobs.com> domain name is registered with Internet.bs Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet.bs Corp. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet.bs Corp. 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 October 19, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 9, 2015 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@dominospizzajobs.com. Also on October 19, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 13, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" 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 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 has become a recognized world leader in pizza and pizza delivery, with more than 9,000 pizza restaurants, including more than 5,000 internationally. Complainant has registered the DOMINO’S PIZZA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,166,751, registered August 25, 1981), which demonstrates its rights in its mark. The <dominospizzajobs.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely eliminates spacing between words, adds the generic term “jobs,” and adds the generic top-level domain “.com” to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. First, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any variant of Complainant’s mark. Second, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Finally, Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent’s disputed domain name diverts Internet users to a competitor of Complainant.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent has been the subject of numerous prior adverse UDRP decisions. Second, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by taking advantage of users searching for Complainant on the Internet.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain name was registered on March 13, 2009.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and famous trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and famous trademark, DOMINOS PIZZA. Complainant has adequately plead a legitimate commercial interest in this registered trademark.
To arrive at the disputed domain name, Respondent merely removed a space between “dominos” and “pizza” and appended a gTLD. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s registered and famous trademark. As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous and registered trademark.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent apparently is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any variant of Complainant’s mark. Further, Complainant argues that Respondent has no license or authorization to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information merely lists “Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services” as registrant. Respondent has failed to submit any evidence for the Panel’s consideration.
Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a competitor of Complainant. There is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use where a respondent uses a disputed name to redirect Internet traffic to a website of a complainant’s competitor.
As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in or to the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that Respondent has been the subject of numerous prior adverse UDRP decisions, thereby evincing bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). In so arguing, Complainant references several previous adverse UDRP decisions against Respondent: Vera Bradley, Inc., v. PPA Media Services/Ryan G Foo, FA1308001516883 (October 16, 2013), Klein Tools, Inc. v. PPA Media Services/Ryan G Foo, FA 1497397 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2013), and AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. PPA Media Services/Ryan G Foo, FA 1497170 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 16, 2013). Previous panels have found evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where a respondent was subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of the disputed domain names to the complainants. See Westcoast Contempo Fashions Ltd. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 814312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant further contends that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by taking advantage of users searching for Complainant on the Internet. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain name redirects Internet users to Pizza Hut, one of Complainant’s competitors. Past panels have found bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent’s disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a website that offers products and services similar to those offered by the complainant. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by displaying the complainant’s mark on its website and offering identical services as those offered by the complainant).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dominospizzajobs.com> domain name transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: November 16, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page