Target Brands, Inc. v. Nadeem Qadir
Claim Number: FA0910001290087
Complainant is Target
Brands, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer Daniel Collins, of
Faegre & Benson LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <wwwtarget.com>, registered with Enom, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 19, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 19, 2009.
On October 20, 2009, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wwwtarget.com> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 October 21, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 10, 2009 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@wwwtarget.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 12, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <wwwtarget.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TARGET mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwtarget.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwtarget.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Target Brands, Inc., is a retail discount department store company offering a diverse range of products, such as electronic products. Complainant began operating stores under the TARGET mark in 1962, and currently operates more than 1,400 stores in forty seven states. Complainant offers its discount department store services online as well at <target.com>. Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its TARGET mark (e.g., Reg. No. 845,193 issued February 27, 1968).
Respondent, Nadeem Qadir, registered the <wwwtarget.com> domain name on December 24, 1999. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring a commercial search engine and hyperlinks to competing third-party websites that offer electronic products also 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."
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 has registered its TARGET mark multiple times with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 845,193 issued February 27, 1968). Previous panels have held that trademark registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the TARGET mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration with the USPTO. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <wwwtarget.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TARGET mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s entire TARGET mark and adds the prefix “www,” which is commonly used as a prefix to a domain name, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds the additions of the “www” prefix and a gTLD are insufficient to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. S1A, FA 128683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2002) (holding confusing similarity has been established because the prefix “www” does not sufficiently differentiate the <wwwneimanmarcus.com> domain name from the complainant's NEIMAN-MARCUS mark); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <wwwtarget.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TARGET mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwtarget.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because the respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed. In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been authorized to use the TARGET mark. Respondent has failed to provide evidence that it is commonly known by the <wwwtarget.com> domain name. The WHOIS information lists respondent as “Nadeem Qadir.” Furthermore, the Panel fails to find evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <wwwtarget.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwtarget.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).
Respondent uses the <wwwtarget.com> domain name to resolve to a website featuring a commercial search engine and hyperlinks resolving to websites of competing third parties that offer similar electronic products offered by Complainant. The Panel finds this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names under 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 ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be a use in connection with 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)).
In addition, Complainant contends Respondent’s use of the <wwwtarget.com> domain name, a common mistyping of Complainant’s TARGET mark, constitutes typosquatting. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users seeking Complainant’s online presence is further evidence that Respondent fails to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name, a typosquatted version of the complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in and of itself that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name vis á vis the complainant); see also Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent merely redirected the <wwwmedline.com> domain name to the complainant’s own website at <medline.com>).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s <wwwtarget.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring a commercial search engine and hyperlinks to competing third parties that offer electronic products similar to the electronic products offered by Complainant. Internet users interested in purchasing those electronic products from Complainant may instead purchase the products from a competitor of Complainant. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s discount department store services business, which constitutes bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4 (b)(iii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tapia, FA 328159 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (“Respondent is referring Internet traffic that seeks out the <aol.tv> domain name to a competitor’s news site. The Panel strongly finds that appropriating Complainant’s mark to refer customers seeking Complainant to Complainant’s competitors is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
The Panel infers Respondent receives click-through fees from the links to Complainant’s competitors. Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain name to profit from Internet users’ confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with or sponsorship of the resolving website. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. 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).
Furthermore, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting through its use of the <wwwtarget.com> domain name, which is a common mistyping of Complainant’s TARGET mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s engagement in the practice of typosquatting additionally constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period after the ‘www’ portion of [a] web-address,” which was evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith); see also Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Registering a domain name which entirely incorporates a famous mark with the addition of the “www” prefix evidences not only actual knowledge of a trademark holder’s rights in that mark but an intent to ensnare Internet users who forget to type the period between the “www” and a second-level domain name while attempting to reach Complainant’s URL.”).
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 <wwwtarget.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: November 25, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum