Target Brands, Inc. v. Jeff Graves
Claim Number: FA0609000804695
Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Deborah Shinbein, of Faegre & Benson, LLP, 1700 Lincoln St., Suite 3200, Denver, CO 80202-4532. Respondent is Jeff Graves (“Respondent”), 1065 S. Allante Place, Boise, ID 83709.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <targetdrugstore.com> and < targetdrugstores.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.
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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 22, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 25, 2006.
On September 25, 2006, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <targetdrugstore.com> and < targetdrugstores.com> domain names are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On September 26, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 16, 2006 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@targetdrugstore.com and postmaster@targetdrugstores.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 23, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <targetdrugstore.com> and < targetdrugstores.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TARGET mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <targetdrugstore.com> and < targetdrugstores.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <targetdrugstore.com> and <targetdrugstores.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Target Brands, Inc., operates a chain of retail discount department stores throughout the United States. In connection with this operation, Complainant has registered a number of trade and service marks including the TARGET mark, which has been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)(Reg. No. 845,193 issued February 27, 1968).
Respondent registered the <targetdrugstore.com> domain name on July 8, 2003 and registered the < targetdrugstores.com> domain name on November 28, 2005. Respondent has used the domain names to direct Internet users to search engines with links to stores, on-line commerce websites, consumer services, consumer products and other online shopping sites that compete with Complainant’s business. Presently, both web sites at the domain names resolve to Complainant’s own web site.
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."
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(e), 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.”).
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.
Complainant asserts rights in the TARGET mark through registration with the USPTO. The Panel finds that Complainant’s extensive use of the TARGET mark for over thirty-five years is sufficient to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive [or] have acquired secondary meaning.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <targetdrugstore.com> and <targetdrugstores.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s disputed domain names feature Complainant’s entire TARGET mark and adds the generic terms “drugstore” and “drugstores.” The Panel finds that the addition of a generic term to an otherwise identical mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kaufman, FA 94335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that <statefarmdirect.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks all rights or legitimate interests in the <targetdrugstore.com> and <targetdrugstores.com> domain names. In instances where Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to set forth concrete evidence that it does possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent has used its disputed domain name to resolve to search engines with links to stores, on-line commerce websites, consumer services, consumer products and other online shopping sites that compete with Complainant’s business from which Respondent presumably received referral fees. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to the complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
Moreover, Complainant contends that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <targetdrugstore.com> and <targetdrugstores.com> domain names nor authorized to register domain names featuring Complainant’s TARGET mark in any way. In the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede the respondent’s registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4 (a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has used the <targetdrugstore.com> and <targetdrugstores.com> domain names to operate websites that provide Internet users with links to various competing retail websites. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use constituted a disruption of Complainant’s business and evinces bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).
Respondent has used the disputed domain names to resolve to
search engines with links to competing retail websites and is currently using
the sites to resolve to Complainant’s own site. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names likely caused
confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship of and affiliation with the resulting
websites. The Panel finds that such use
of domain names for Respondent’s own commercial gain was additional evidence of
Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4
(b)(iv). See Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs.,
D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent's use
of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are
offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that the
complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the
site); see also MathForum.com, LLC
v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly
similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a
commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant
under its mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <targetdrugstore.com> and <targetdrugstores.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: November 6, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page