Redcats USA, L.P. v. Domain Administrator
Claim Number: FA1003001314369
Complainant is Redcats USA, L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Stephen M. Werner, of Redcats USA, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator (“Respondent”), Jordan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <wwwroamans.com>, registered with Moniker.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 19, 2010.
On March 23, 2010, Moniker confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wwwroamans.com> domain name is registered with Moniker and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker 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 March 25, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 14, 2010 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@wwwroamans.com. Also on March 25, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 20, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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 <wwwroamans.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROAMAN’S mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwroamans.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwroamans.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Redcats USA,
L.P., uses the ROAMAN’S mark in
connection with retail mail order catalog services featuring ladies apparel. Complainant owns federal trademark
registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for
the ROAMAN’S and related marks (e.g.,
Reg. No. 1,169,405 issued September 15, 1981).
Respondent, Domain Administrator, registered the <wwwroamans.com> domain name on December 6, 2001. The disputed domain name resolves to a directory page displaying generic third-party links to goods and services in competition with 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of its
trademark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in the
ROAMAN’S mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), irrespective of
Respondent’s location. 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 Williams-Sonoma,
Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has
registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).
Respondent’s <wwwroamans.com> disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROAMAN’S mark. Respondent’s disputed domain name modifies Complainant’s mark only by adding the prefix “www,” deleting the apostrophe, and attaching the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that adding the prefix “www” to Complainant’s mark fails to differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 Register.com Inc. v. House, FA 167970 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 22, 2003) (finding the prefix “www” followed by the trademark with no period separating them did not distinguish the mark and was confusingly similar). The Panel also finds that small changes like the elimination of an apostrophe fail to prevent confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Chi-Chi’s, Inc. v. Rest. Commentary, D2000-0321 (WIPO June 29, 2000) (finding the domain name <chichis.com> to be identical to the complainant’s CHI-CHI’S mark, despite the omission of the apostrophe and hyphen from the mark); see also LOreal USA Creative Inc v. Syncopate.com – Smart Names for Startups, FA 203944 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that the omission of an apostrophe did not significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark). The addition of the gTLD “.com” is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <wwwroamans.com> disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROAMAN’S mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant is required by Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) to put forth a prima facie case in regard to this assertion. Subsequently, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does possess rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently established a prima facie case. Respondent’s failure to respond results in an inference by the Panel that Respondent lacks any rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See 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); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent’s failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). The Panel elects, however, to consider the evidence presented in light of the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors in order to make an independent determination of whether Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name does not reflect that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and accordingly lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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 St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a directory page displaying generic links that resolve both to Complainant’s site and to other third-party sites that offer products competing with Complainant. The Panel finds that maintaining such a directory page in connection with the disputed domain fails to meet the requirements of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Form v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to a Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is capitalizing on a common error made when entering domain names: the elimination of the period between “www” and the rest of the domain name. The Panel finds that this practice constitutes typosquatting, which is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent “had engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names were intentional misspellings of Complainant’s LTD COMMODITIES mark and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a generic page advertising topical links for various products offered by Complainant. Some of the links resolve to Complainant’s web page while other links resolve to web pages of Complainant’s competitors. These links promoting other businesses’ goods clearly disrupt Complainant’s business because the unwary Internet user may arrive at Respondent’s directory page and be directed away from Complainant, despite an initial intent to visit Complainant’s web page. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to divert Complainant’s intending customers reveals bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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)); see also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors).
Respondent’s use of Complainant’s well-known ROAMAN’S mark is clearly intended to attract Complainant’s customers attempting to reach Complainant’s web page. After arriving on Respondent’s page, the Internet users result in profit to Respondent by way of “click-through fees” if they click on any of the links hosted on Respondent’s directory web page. The Panel finds that Respondent’s efforts to mislead and attract Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s own web page for commercial gain demonstrate bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (“By use of <yahgo.com> to operate its search engine, a name that infringes upon Complainant’s mark, Respondent is found to have created circumstances indicating that Respondent, by using the domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or of a product or service on the website as proscribed in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); 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).
The Panel finds Respondent’s practice of typosquatting is evidence by itself of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatologica.com> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant’s DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel finds 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 <wwwroamans.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 29, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum