national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Automotive Racing Products, Inc. v. Linecom

Claim Number: FA0611000836787

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Automotive Racing Products, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Daniel M. Cislo, of Cislo & Thomas LLP, 233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900, Santa Monica, CA 90401.  Respondent is Linecom (“Respondent”), 1 Sejongro, Jongro, Seoul 100-050, KR.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <arpfastener.com>, registered with Onlinenic, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 8, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 13, 2006.

 

On November 9, 2006, Onlinenic, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <arpfastener.com> domain name is registered with Onlinenic, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Onlinenic, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Onlinenic, 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 November 13, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 4, 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@arpfastener.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On December 7, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <arpfastener.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ARP mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <arpfastener.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <arpfastener.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Automotive Racing Products, Inc., has continuously and extensively used the ARP mark since 1975 in association with high performance metal fasteners for use in the automotive racing industry.  Complainant has generated sales of over $280 million since 1975 and has spent approximately $10 million advertising and promoting its products under the ARP mark in magazines and on the Internet.  Complainant also maintains websites at several domain names, including <arpfasteners.com>.

 

Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the ARP mark (Reg. No. 1,472,833 issued January 19, 1988).

 

Respondent’s <arpfastener.com> domain name, which it registered on August 2, 2006, resolves to a website indicating that the disputed domain name is for sale.  Complainant has sent Respondent letters offering to purchase the <arpfastener.com> domain name registration for $1,500 but Respondent has failed to respond to any of Complainant’s offers.  As a result, Complainant believes that Respondent would like to sell the disputed domain name registration for a larger amount.  In addition, Respondent apparently registered the <arpfastener.com> domain name after the previous registrant, A-1 Technologies, inadvertently allowed the disputed domain name registration to lapse while negotiating the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has established rights in the ARP mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.  See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also VICORP Rests., Inc. v. Triantafillos, FA 485933 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the BAKERS SQUARE mark by registering it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”).

 

Respondent’s <arpfastener.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s ARP mark in its entirety and merely adds the term “fastener,” the main type of product Complainant manufactures, markets and sells under the ARP mark.  In Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2005), the panel found that the addition of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <duracellbatteries.com> from the complainant’s DURACELL mark.  Moreover, in L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000), the panel concluded that the <shopllbean.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s L.L. BEAN mark because the addition of a generic word does not avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN policy.  Because similar circumstances exist in the present case, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <arpfastener.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ARP mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <arpfastener.com> domain name.  Complainant must first make a prima facie case in support of its allegations, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See 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.”).

 

Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises a presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <arpfastener.com> domain name. 

See CMGI, Inc. v. Reyes, D2000-0572 (WIPO Aug. 8, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s failure to produce requested documentation supports a finding for the complainant); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond).  However, the Panel will now examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

There is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <arpfastener.com> domain name.  As a result, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <arpfastener.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See The Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).

 

Respondent’s website at the <arpfastener.com> domain name contains text stating that the domain name registration is for sale.  Respondent’s readily apparent willingness to sell the disputed domain name provides evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <arpfastener.com> domain name, as simply offering the disputed domain name registration for sale does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Performance Networks, Inc., FA 95083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent registered the domain name with the intention of selling its rights); see also Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. Hyun-Jun Shin, FA 154098 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (holding that under the circumstances, the respondent’s apparent willingness to dispose of its rights in the disputed domain name suggested that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). 

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent is using the <arpfastener.com> domain name to market the domain name registration for sale.  Even after Complainant offered to purchase the disputed domain name registration for $1,500 from Respondent, Respondent simply failed to respond.  The Panel infers that Respondent is seeking an amount far in excess of its out-of-pocket registration costs and therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).  See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered domain names for sale).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

 

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <arpfastener.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

                                                                                   

                                                           

                                                                        John J. Upchurch, Panelist

                                                                        Dated:  December 21, 2006

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page