Marketo, Inc. v. Sunil Muniraj
Claim Number: FA1603001663719
Complainant is Marketo, Inc. (“Complainant”), California, United States. Respondent is Sunil Muniraj (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <b2bmarketo.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 2, 2016; the Forum received payment on March 2, 2016.
On March 3, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <b2bmarketo.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 March 4, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 2016 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@b2bmarketo.com. Also on March 4, 2016, 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 March 29, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant is a recognized leader in the field of marketing automation technology. Complainant has registered the MARKETO mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,369,973, registered January 15, 2008), which demonstrates Complainant’s rights in its mark. The <b2bmarketo.com> domain is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark, merely adding the descriptive term “b2b” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
ii) 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 uses its disputed domain name to promote its competing business, Sagacious Infosystems, a “one stop shop presenting professionally exceptional IT Solutions and Online Marketing Services,” as described by Respondent.
iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has attempted to sell the domain, first for $100,000.00 and later for $250,000.00.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered on May 26, 2015.
Complainant established that it had rights in the mark contained in the disputed domain name. Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected mark.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
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(f), 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 is a recognized leader in the field of marketing automation technology. Complainant has registered the MARKETO mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,369,973, registered January 15, 2008), which, according to Complainant, demonstrates its rights in the mark. The Panel finds that trademark registrations with the USPTO suffice to demonstrate a complainant’s rights in its mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), with respect to the geographic disparity of the parties. 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.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated its rights in its mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The <b2bmarketo.com> domain is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark, merely adding the descriptive term “b2b” and the gTLD “.com.” Previous panels have held that the addition of a descriptive term to a complainant’s mark does not serve to adequately distinguish a domain from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Karandish, FA 563833 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 2, 2005) (finding that the addition of the descriptive term “talk” to a registered mark does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Previous panels have also found that the affixation of the gTLD “.com” is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Countrywide Fin. Corp. v. Johnson & Sons Sys., FA 1073019 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2007) (holding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” was irrelevant). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
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); 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 argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent 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 Panel notes that the WHOIS information merely lists “Sunil Muniraj” as registrant and that Respondent has failed to provide any evidence for the Panel’s consideration. As such, the Panel finds no basis in the available record to find Respondent 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).
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. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent uses its disputed domain name to promote its competing business. Previous panels have held that a respondent’s use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site). Therefore, the Panel finds 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).
Complainant contends that Respondent has attempted to sell the domain, first for $100,000.00 and later for $250,000.00. Past panels have agreed that a respondent’s offer to sell a domain for an amount that exceeds the respondent’s out-of-pocket costs associated with registering the domain constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). 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). For this reason, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain in bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <b2bmarketo.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. Panelist
Dated: April 7, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page