Target Brands, Inc. v. shone jackson / rnr crafs llc
Claim Number: FA1701001713985
Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is shone jackson / rnr crafs llc (“Respondent”), Kentucky, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro>, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 24, 2017; the Forum received payment on January 26, 2017.
On January 26, 2017, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> 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 January 27, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 16, 2017 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@targetegifts.com, postmaster@targets-card.com, postmaster@targets-ecard.com, postmaster@targetmyegift.com, postmaster@targetsegift.pro. Also on January 27, 2017, 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 February 23, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant operates retail department stores, offering related goods and services, throughout the United States. Complainant registered the TARGET mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 845,193, registered Feb. 27, 1968). Respondent’s <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TARGET mark. All of the disputed domain names use the TARGET mark in its entirety. Four of the marks add the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”); the fifth adds “.pro” gTLD. The disputed domain names add descriptive and generic terms, hyphens, and the letter “s.” Complainant notes that the descriptive terms “egift(s)”, “card,” and “ecard” are representative of Complainant’s products and services.
Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the TARGET mark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain names. Respondent’s <targetegifts.com> and <targets-card.com> resolve to fraudulent phishing websites, attempting to obtain internet users’ personal information, presumably for Respondent’s profit. Respondent’s <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> resolve to blank websites displaying error messages that the website cannot be located.
Respondent registered and is using <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> domains in bad faith. The disputed domain names resolve to fraudulent, phishing websites or blank webpages. The phishing websites, <targetmyegift.com> and <targetsegift.pro>, attempt to illegally obtain credit card information and gift card values. Additionally, Respondent has registered multiple domain names infringing on other famous marks evincing a pattern of bad faith registrations. Respondent registered <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> with actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights to the TARGET mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Target Brands, Inc., operates retail department stores, offering related goods and services, throughout the United States. Complainant has rights in the TARGET mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 845,193, registered Feb. 27, 1968). Respondent’s <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TARGET mark.
Respondent, shone jackson / rnr crafs llc, registered <targetegifts.com> on September 5, 2016; <targets-card.com> on September 23, 2016; <targets-ecard.com> on September 20, 2016; <targetmyegift.com> on September 12, 2016; and <targetsegift.pro> on November 18, 2016.
Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro>.
Respondent registered and is using <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> 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 (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 TARGET mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with USPTO. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (“There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark....”).
Respondent’s <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TARGET mark. All of the disputed domain names use the TARGET mark in its entirety. Four of the marks add the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”); the fifth adds “.pro” gTLD. The disputed domain names add descriptive and generic terms (“egift(s)”, “my”, “card”, “ecard”), hyphens, and the letter “s.” The descriptive terms “egift(s)”, “card”, and “ecard” are representative of Complainant’s products and services.
Panels have concluded that “the addition of a term descriptive of [c]omplainant’s business, the addition of a hyphen, and the addition of the gTLD ‘.com’ are insufficient to distinguish [r]espondent’s domain name from [c]omplainant’s mark.” Eastman Chem. Co. v. Patel, FA 524752 (Forum Sept. 7, 2005). Additionally, Panels have found that the additions of the letter “s” and generic top-level domains to the disputed domain names fail to avoid the confusing similarity between the domain names and the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Barnesandnoble.com LLC v. Your One Stop Web Shop, FA 670171 (Forum May 3, 2006).
Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro>. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the TARGET mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant as “shone jackson” of “rnr crafs llc.” SeeTercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (Where nothing in the respondent’s WHOIS information implies that the respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, panels have concluded that WHOIS information, absent evidence to the contrary, is sufficient to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.).
Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain names. Respondent’s <targetegifts.com> and <targets-card.com> resolve to fraudulent phishing websites, attempting to obtain internet users’ personal information, presumably for Respondent’s profit. See Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) (A respondent’s attempt to ‘phish’ for users’ personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Respondent’s <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> resolve to blank websites displaying error messages that the website cannot be located. “Respondent’s failure to associate content with its disputed domain name shows a lack of rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).” U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Forum Apr. 9, 2007).
Respondent has registered and is using <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> domains in bad faith. The disputed domain names resolve to fraudulent, phishing websites or blank webpages. The phishing websites, <targetmyegift.com> and <targetsegift.pro>, attempt to illegally obtain credit card information and gift card values. Panels have concluded that using a domain name that “is confusingly similar to [c]omplainant’s mark, [and] redirects Internet users to a website that imitates [c]omplainant’s . . . website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from [c]omplainant’s clients” is evidence of bad faith registration and use.” Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Forum May 3, 2004).
The <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> domains resolve to blank webpages with no indication of an intent to use the pages. Therefore, Respondent registered and uses these domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Indiana University v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1588079 (Forum Dec. 28, 2014) (A respondent’s useless holding of a domain name shows respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Additionally, Respondent has registered multiple domain names infringing on other famous marks evincing a pattern of bad faith registrations. Panels have found that a complainant’s submission of WHOIS evidence that lists the respondent as the registrant of other domain names incorporating third-party trademarks is sufficient to establish that the respondent has a pattern of registering and using domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). N.H. Sweepstakes Comm’n v. We Web Well, Inc., FA 197499 (Forum Nov. 3, 2003). Because “Respondent has a history of registering domain names that infringe on other trademark holders' rights . . . , Respondent's registration and use of the [disputed] domain name constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). . . .” Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Kang, FA 170519 (Forum Sept. 9, 2003).
Finally, Respondent registered <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> with actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights to the TARGET mark. Panels have found evidence of bad faith where the respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of the complainant and its trademark rights. Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002).
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 <targetegifts.com>, <targets-card.com>, <targets-ecard.com>, <targetmyegift.com>, and <targetsegift.pro> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 9, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page