Tommy John, Inc. v. PROXY PROTECTION LLC
Claim Number: FA1803001776448
Complainant is Tommy John, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Stacy J. Grossman of Law Office of Stacy J. Grossman, New York, USA. Respondent is PROXY PROTECTION LLC (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tommyjohnoutlet.com>, registered with DreamHost, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 16, 2018; the Forum received payment on March 16, 2018.
On March 22, 2018, DreamHost, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name is registered with DreamHost, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DreamHost, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DreamHost, 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 22, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 11, 2018 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@tommyjohnoutlet.com. Also on March 22, 2018, 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 April 13, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant manufactures and sells clothing and related apparel in connection with the TOMMY JOHN mark.
Complainant has rights in the TOMMY JOHN mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,338,089, registered May 21, 2013).
Respondent’s <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TOMMY JOHN mark as Respondent adds the generic term “outlet” and a “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”) to the mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name as Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s TOMMY JOHN mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant and sell competing products.
Respondent registered and is using the <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and diverts users to the at-issue domain name’s website in order to offer competing goods. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TOMMY JOHN mark at the time of registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the TOMMY JOHN mark as demonstrated by its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Complainant’s rights in the TOMMY JOHN mark existed prior to Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent uses the <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and trick <tommyjohnoutlet.com> website visitors into believing they are dealing with Complainant when they are not so that Respondent may exploit the goodwill in Complainant trademark to facilitate the sale of products that compete with those offered by Complainant.
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.”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of USPTO trademark registration for TOMMY JOHN evidences its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(I). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Additionally, the at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s entire TOMMY JOHN trademark (less its insignificant space) followed by the generic term “outlet” and the top level domain name “.com”. Significantly, the differences between the at-issue <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name and Complainant’s TOMMY JOHN trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. In fact, the use of the term “outlet” enhances any confusion as it suggests what appears to be a legitimate Complainant sponsored online outlet store. Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent’s <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TOMMY JOHN trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies its registrant as “PROXY PROTECTION LLC / PROXY PROTECTION LLC.” The record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (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).
Respondent uses the <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name and associated <tommyjohnoutlet.com> website to pass itself off as Complainant so that it may there sell goods competing with those goods offered by Complainant. Respondent’s passing itself off as a Complainant in order to sell Complainant’s goods, or counterfeit versions thereof, or competing third party goods, or any goods for that matter, is not a use indicative of Respondent having rights or legitimate interests in the <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name. Such use constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Nokia Corp. v. Eagle, FA 1125685 (Forum Feb. 7, 2008) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the complainant in order to advertise and sell unauthorized products of the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Fadal Engineering, LLC v. DANIEL STRIZICH,INDEPENDENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICE INC, FA 1581942 (Forum Nov. 13, 2014) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain to sell products related to Complainant without authorization “does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, Policy ¶ 4(b) specific bad faith circumstances as well as other circumstance are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith regarding the domain name, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As touched on above, Respondent uses the <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name to pose as a Complainant sponsored outlet store so that it may improperly exploit the goodwill associated with Complainant’s TOMMY JOHN trademark. The <tommyjohnoutlet.com> website offers goods that are branded as TOMMY JOHN and compete with those offered by Complainant. Use of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant’s business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2 Vioxx.com, FA 124508 (Forum Oct. 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s CELEBREX mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”); Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”).
Furthermore, Respondent registered <tommyjohnoutlet.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in TOMMY JOHN. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident given the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and given Respondent’s use of the domain name to wrongfully capitalize on such trademark. It follows that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tommyjohnoutlet.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 18, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page