Patriot Majority USA v. Amat Faozi
Claim Number: FA1803001778137
Complainant is Patriot Majority USA (“Complainant”), represented by John P. Halski of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Amat Faozi (“Respondent”), Indonesia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <patriotmajoritypac.us>, registered with Dynadot, 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 March 21, 2018; the Forum received payment on March 21, 2018.
On March 22, 2018, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 23, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 12, 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@patriotmajoritypac.us. Also on March 23, 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 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD Rules, the National Arbitration 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, Patriot Majority USA, is a United States-based 501(c)(4) corporation which promotes economic solutions and encourages job creation throughout the United States under its PATRIOT MAJORITY mark. Complainant has rights in the PATRIOT MAJORITY mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,821,003, registered July 20, 2010). Respondent’s <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PATRIOT MAJORITY mark, as the domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with the addition of the term “pac”—which is a common acronym for “Political Action Committee”—and the “.us” ccTLD.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the PATRIOT MAJORITY mark. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name in connection with a website that purports to offer “Tips to Choose Computer Desks,” a commercial use unrelated to Complainant’s activity.
While the usTLD Policy only requires a showing a domain name has been registered or used in bad faith, Respondent registered and is using the <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name appears to be part of a bad faith pattern of such registrations. Further, Respondent uses the domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and attract Internet users for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Patriot Majority USA, is a United States-based 501(c)(4) corporation which promotes economic solutions and encourages job creation throughout the United States under its PATRIOT MAJORITY mark. Complainant has rights in the PATRIOT MAJORITY mark based upon its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 3,821,003, registered July 20, 2010). Respondent’s <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PATRIOT MAJORITY mark.
Respondent, Amat Faozi, registered the <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name on January 17, 2018.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name in connection with a website that purports to offer “Tips to Choose Computer Desks,” a commercial use unrelated to Complainant’s activity.
Respondent registered and is using the <patriotmajoritypac.us> 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 or is being used in bad faith.
(4)
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 rights in the PATRIOT MAJORITY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO. (e.g. Reg. No. 3,821,003, registered July 20, 2010). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).
Respondent’s <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name is confusingly similar to the PATRIOT MAJORITY mark, as the domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with the addition of the term “pac”—which is a common acronym for “Political Action Committee”—and the “.us” ccTLD.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the PATRIOT MAJORITY mark. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Amat Faozi,” Where a response is lacking, the WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).
Respondent has failed to use the <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). The domain name resolves to an unrelated commercial website purporting to offer “Tips to Choose Computer Desks.” Such use does not show rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv). See Haru Holding Corporation v. AI Matusita, FA 1679867 (Forum Aug. 11, 2016) (holding that “unrelated use [of a disputed domain name] by a respondent consists of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use”).
Respondent’s registration of the <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name is part of a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. Complainant’s reverse WHOIS search for Respondent shows a history of registering domain names which infringe on the trademarks of third parties (e.g. <afamcapital.us>, <strongbowcider.us>, and <curecoin.us>). A pattern of bad faith registration per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) can be established by a showing of the respondent’s registration of other domain names infringing on famous marks. See Philip Morris Inc. v. r9.net, D2003-0004 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s previous registration of domain names such as <pillsbury.net>, <schlitz.net>, <biltmore.net> and <honeywell.net> and subsequent registration of the disputed <marlboro.com> domain name evidenced bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).
Respondent’s intentional use of the <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark in order to attract Internet users for commercial gain is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. Use of a confusingly similar domain name for commercial purposes unrelated to a complainant’s business can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <patriotmajoritypac.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 26, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page