Artisan Partners Holdings LP v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited
Claim Number: FA1702001719182
Complainant is Artisan Partners Holdings LP (“Complainant”), represented by Alexis Crawford Douglas of K&L Gates LLP, Illinois, United States. Respondent is Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited (“Respondent”), Great Britain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <artisanpartner.com>, registered with Domain.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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 27, 2017; the Forum received payment on February 27, 2017.
On February 27, 2017, Domain.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <artisanpartner.com> domain name is registered with Domain.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domain.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domain.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 February 28, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 20, 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@artisanpartner.com. Also on February 28, 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 March 31, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant registered the ARTISAN PARTNERS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,367,219, registered July 16, 2013). Respondent’s <artisanpartner.com> mark is confusingly similar as it merely omits the space and the last letter “s” from the ARTISAN PARTNERS and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <artisanpartner.com>. The WHOIS information shows that Respondent employed a privacy service when registering the disputed domain name. Thus, Respondent is not commonly known by the ARTISAN PARTNERS mark, nor is Respondent sponsored or legitimately affiliated with Complainant. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the mark. Respondent also doesn’t use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services because the disputed domain name resolves to a parked website with hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s services, presumably for pay-per-click fees.
Respondent registered and uses the <artisanpartner.com> in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and endorsement of Respondent’s website and its services. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer hyperlinks that redirect users to various webpages, some of which directly compete with Complainant. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Artisan Partners Holdings LP, is a global investment management firm that provides investment management strategies and advisory services to clients throughout the United States and around the world. Complainant has rights in the ARTISAN PARTNERS mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,367,219, registered July 16, 2013). Respondent’s <artisanpartner.com> mark is confusingly similar to the ARTISAN PARTNERS mark.
Respondent, Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, registered the <artisanpartner.com>domain name on April 27, 2016.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <artisanpartner.com>. Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services because the disputed domain name resolves to a parked website with hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s services, presumably for pay-per-click fees.
Respondent registered and uses the <artisanpartner.com> 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 ARTISAN PARTNERS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1627542 (Forum Aug. 9, 2015) (finding that Complainant has rights in the METROPCS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.).
Respondent’s <artisanpartner.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it simply omits a character and a space, while adding a gTLD.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <artisanpartner.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the ARTISAN PARTNERS mark. A privacy service was used by Respondent and the true identity of Respondent remains unknown. The WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “PRIVACY Gods / Privacy Gods Limited”. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).
Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <artisanpartner.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), as the domain name resolves in a website that lacks any content, except for a search engine and hyperlinks to competing services. See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Respondent registered and uses the <artisanpartner.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which displays a search engine and links to Complainant’s competitors. Such behavior disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark which is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
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 <artisanpartner.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 14, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page