Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. weng huangteng
Claim Number: FA1007001334364
Complainant is Deckers
Outdoor Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Justin Gaudio, of Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain name at issue is <bestuggs.org>, <uggbootstore.net>, <uggsretailer.org>, <uggboots-home.net>, <uggssale.org>, <buy-cheap-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shoes.net>, <buy-uggs.net>, <cheap-uggboots.net>, <hotuggs.net>, <offeruggboots.net>, <topugg.net>, <ugg-boot-shoes.net>, <bestuggstore.net>, <uggbootspace.com>, <sale-ugg-boots.net>, <uggboots-zone.com>, <uggaustralia-boots.net>, <uggonlinesale.net>, <ugg-footwear.net>, <ugg-trade.com>, <sale-ugg.net>, <saleuggboots.net>, <sellcheapuggs.com>, <uggbootshop.net>, <sell-ugg.net>, <uggboots-onsale.net>, <sheepskin-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shop.net>, <cheapuggsonline.net>, <uggboots-site.com>, <discount-uggboots.net>, <ugg-supplier.com>, <cheap-uggs-online.com>, <purchaseuggboots.com>, <cheapestugg.net>, <uggbootstribal.com>, <uggboots-online.net>, <uggprovide.com>, <uggs-forcheap.com>, <uggbootshome.net>, <uggsonlineshop.net>, <uggbootsky.net>, <saleuggs.net>, <uggbootsleader.com>, <uggs-online.net>, <ugg-mall.net>, <discount-uggs.net>, <ugg-for-sale.com>, <ugg-sales.net>, <uggboots-space.com>, <uggsonlinestore.net>, <uggsalezone.com>, and <shopping-uggs.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation; Bizcn.com, Inc.; Hooyoo Information Technology CO. LTD.
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 July 9, 2010.
On July 12, 2010 and July 15, 2010, Xin Net Technology Corporation; Bizcn.com, Inc.; Hooyoo Information Technology CO. LTD. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bestuggs.org>, <uggbootstore.net>, <uggsretailer.org>, <uggboots-home.net>, <uggssale.org>, <buy-cheap-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shoes.net>, <buy-uggs.net>, <cheap-uggboots.net>, <hotuggs.net>, <offeruggboots.net>, <topugg.net>, <ugg-boot-shoes.net>, <bestuggstore.net>, <uggbootspace.com>, <sale-ugg-boots.net>, <uggboots-zone.com>, <uggaustralia-boots.net>, <uggonlinesale.net>, <ugg-footwear.net>, <ugg-trade.com>, <sale-ugg.net>, <saleuggboots.net>, <sellcheapuggs.com>, <uggbootshop.net>, <sell-ugg.net>, <uggboots-onsale.net>, <sheepskin-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shop.net>, <cheapuggsonline.net>, <uggboots-site.com>, <discount-uggboots.net>, <ugg-supplier.com>, <cheap-uggs-online.com>, <purchaseuggboots.com>, <cheapestugg.net>, <uggbootstribal.com>, <uggboots-online.net>, <uggprovide.com>, <uggs-forcheap.com>, <uggbootshome.net>, <uggsonlineshop.net>, <uggbootsky.net>, <saleuggs.net>, <uggbootsleader.com>, <uggs-online.net>, <ugg-mall.net>, <discount-uggs.net>, <ugg-for-sale.com>, <ugg-sales.net>, <uggboots-space.com>, <uggsonlinestore.net>, <uggsalezone.com>, and <shopping-uggs.com> domain names are registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation; Bizcn.com, Inc.; Hooyoo Information Technology CO. LTD. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Xin Net Technology Corporation; Bizcn.com, Inc.; Hooyoo Information Technology CO. LTD. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation; Bizcn.com, Inc.; Hooyoo Information Technology CO. LTD. 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 July 26, 2010, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 16, 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@bestuggs.org, postmaster@uggbootstore.net, postmaster@uggsretailer.org, postmaster@uggboots-home.net, postmaster@uggssale.org, postmaster@buy-cheap-uggs.com, postmaster@uggboots-shoes.net, postmaster@buy-uggs.net, postmaster@cheap-uggboots.net, postmaster@hotuggs.net, postmaster@offeruggboots.net, postmaster@topugg.net, postmaster@ugg-boot-shoes.net, postmaster@bestuggstore.net, postmaster@uggbootspace.com, postmaster@sale-ugg-boots.net, postmaster@uggboots-zone.com, postmaster@uggaustralia-boots.net, postmaster@uggonlinesale.net, postmaster@ugg-footwear.net, postmaster@ugg-trade.com, postmaster@sale-ugg.net, postmaster@saleuggboots.net, postmaster@sellcheapuggs.com, postmaster@uggbootshop.net, postmaster@sell-ugg.net, postmaster@uggboots-onsale.net, postmaster@sheepskin-uggs.com, postmaster@uggboots-shop.net, postmaster@cheapuggsonline.net, postmaster@uggboots-site.com, postmaster@discount-uggboots.net, postmaster@ugg-supplier.com, postmaster@cheap-uggs-online.com, postmaster@purchaseuggboots.com, postmaster@cheapestugg.net, postmaster@uggbootstribal.com, postmaster@uggboots-online.net, postmaster@uggprovide.com, postmaster@uggs-forcheap.com, postmaster@uggbootshome.net, postmaster@uggsonlineshop.net, postmaster@uggbootsky.net, postmaster@saleuggs.net, postmaster@uggbootsleader.com, postmaster@uggs-online.net, postmaster@ugg-mall.net, postmaster@discount-uggs.net, postmaster@ugg-for-sale.com, postmaster@ugg-sales.net, postmaster@uggboots-space.com, postmaster@uggsonlinestore.net, postmaster@uggsalezone.com, and postmaster@shopping-uggs.com. Also on July 26, 2010, the Chinese language 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 August 24, 2010, 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" 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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <bestuggs.org>, <uggbootstore.net>, <uggsretailer.org>, <uggboots-home.net>, <uggssale.org>, <buy-cheap-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shoes.net>, <buy-uggs.net>, <cheap-uggboots.net>, <hotuggs.net>, <offeruggboots.net>, <topugg.net>, <ugg-boot-shoes.net>, <bestuggstore.net>, <uggbootspace.com>, <sale-ugg-boots.net>, <uggboots-zone.com>, <uggaustralia-boots.net>, <uggonlinesale.net>, <ugg-footwear.net>, <ugg-trade.com>, <sale-ugg.net>, <saleuggboots.net>, <sellcheapuggs.com>, <uggbootshop.net>, <sell-ugg.net>, <uggboots-onsale.net>, <sheepskin-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shop.net>, <cheapuggsonline.net>, <uggboots-site.com>, <discount-uggboots.net>, <ugg-supplier.com>, <cheap-uggs-online.com>, <purchaseuggboots.com>, <cheapestugg.net>, <uggbootstribal.com>, <uggboots-online.net>, <uggprovide.com>, <uggs-forcheap.com>, <uggbootshome.net>, <uggsonlineshop.net>, <uggbootsky.net>, <saleuggs.net>, <uggbootsleader.com>, <uggs-online.net>, <ugg-mall.net>, <discount-uggs.net>, <ugg-for-sale.com>, <ugg-sales.net>, <uggboots-space.com>, <uggsonlinestore.net>, <uggsalezone.com>, and <shopping-uggs.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s UGG mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bestuggs.org>, <uggbootstore.net>, <uggsretailer.org>, <uggboots-home.net>, <uggssale.org>, <buy-cheap-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shoes.net>, <buy-uggs.net>, <cheap-uggboots.net>, <hotuggs.net>, <offeruggboots.net>, <topugg.net>, <ugg-boot-shoes.net>, <bestuggstore.net>, <uggbootspace.com>, <sale-ugg-boots.net>, <uggboots-zone.com>, <uggaustralia-boots.net>, <uggonlinesale.net>, <ugg-footwear.net>, <ugg-trade.com>, <sale-ugg.net>, <saleuggboots.net>, <sellcheapuggs.com>, <uggbootshop.net>, <sell-ugg.net>, <uggboots-onsale.net>, <sheepskin-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shop.net>, <cheapuggsonline.net>, <uggboots-site.com>, <discount-uggboots.net>, <ugg-supplier.com>, <cheap-uggs-online.com>, <purchaseuggboots.com>, <cheapestugg.net>, <uggbootstribal.com>, <uggboots-online.net>, <uggprovide.com>, <uggs-forcheap.com>, <uggbootshome.net>, <uggsonlineshop.net>, <uggbootsky.net>, <saleuggs.net>, <uggbootsleader.com>, <uggs-online.net>, <ugg-mall.net>, <discount-uggs.net>, <ugg-for-sale.com>, <ugg-sales.net>, <uggboots-space.com>, <uggsonlinestore.net>, <uggsalezone.com>, and <shopping-uggs.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <bestuggs.org>, <uggbootstore.net>, <uggsretailer.org>, <uggboots-home.net>, <uggssale.org>, <buy-cheap-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shoes.net>, <buy-uggs.net>, <cheap-uggboots.net>, <hotuggs.net>, <offeruggboots.net>, <topugg.net>, <ugg-boot-shoes.net>, <bestuggstore.net>, <uggbootspace.com>, <sale-ugg-boots.net>, <uggboots-zone.com>, <uggaustralia-boots.net>, <uggonlinesale.net>, <ugg-footwear.net>, <ugg-trade.com>, <sale-ugg.net>, <saleuggboots.net>, <sellcheapuggs.com>, <uggbootshop.net>, <sell-ugg.net>, <uggboots-onsale.net>, <sheepskin-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shop.net>, <cheapuggsonline.net>, <uggboots-site.com>, <discount-uggboots.net>, <ugg-supplier.com>, <cheap-uggs-online.com>, <purchaseuggboots.com>, <cheapestugg.net>, <uggbootstribal.com>, <uggboots-online.net>, <uggprovide.com>, <uggs-forcheap.com>, <uggbootshome.net>, <uggsonlineshop.net>, <uggbootsky.net>, <saleuggs.net>, <uggbootsleader.com>, <uggs-online.net>, <ugg-mall.net>, <discount-uggs.net>, <ugg-for-sale.com>, <ugg-sales.net>, <uggboots-space.com>, <uggsonlinestore.net>, <uggsalezone.com>, and <shopping-uggs.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, is a footwear manufacturer. Complainant uses the UGG mark in connection with its sheepskin boots, slippers, shoes, purses, and other products. Complainant holds over 100 registrations for the UGG mark in more than 70 countries around the world, including trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,050,925 registered on January 24, 2006) and the China’s State Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 880,518 registered on October 14, 1996).
Respondent, weng huangteng, registered the disputed domain names on or after July 31, 2009. The disputed domain names resolve to websites that purport to offer Complainant’s official merchandise. The resolving websites also display Complainant’s mark and images of Complainant’s products.
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 UGG mark through its
numerous trademark registrations of the mark throughout the world, including
with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No.
3,050,925 registered on January 24, 2006) and the SIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 880,518 registered on October 14, 1996). The Panel finds these trademark registrations
sufficiently prove Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google, Inc. v.
DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that
the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding
of numerous trademark registrations around the world); see also
Complainant alleges Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its UGG mark. All of Respondent’s disputed domain names fully incorporate Complainant’s mark. Each of the disputed domain names also affix the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” or “.net” to Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent adds the descriptive terms “shoes,” “boot,” or “boots” – which describe Complainant’s products – to the following disputed domain names: <uggbootstore.net>, <uggboots-home.net>, <uggboots-shoes.net>, <cheap-uggboots.net>, <offeruggboots.net>, <ugg-boot-shoes.net>, <uggbootspace.com>, <sale-ugg-boots.net>, <uggboots-zone.com>, <uggaustralia-boots.net>, <saleuggboots.net>, <uggbootshop.net>, <uggboots-onsale.net>, <uggboots-shop.net>, <uggboots-site.com>, <discount-uggboots.net>, <purchaseuggboots.com>, <uggboots-online.net>, <uggbootshome.net>, <uggbootsky.net>, <uggbootsleader.com>, and <uggboots-space.com>. In addition, Respondent adds at least one of the following generic terms to Complainant’s UGG mark in the disputed domain names: “best,” “store,” “retailer,” “home,” “sale,” “cheap,” “buy,” “hot,” “offer,” “top,” “space,” “zone,” “australia,” “online,” “footwear,” “trade,” “sell,” “shop,” “on sale,” “sheep skin,” “site,” “discount,” “supplier,” “purchase,” “cheapest,” “tribal,” “provide,” “for,” “home,” “sky,” “leader,” “mall,” or “shopping.” Respondent also attaches the letter “s” to Complainant’s mark in the <bestuggs.org>, <uggssale.org>, <buy-cheap-uggs.com>, <buy-uggs.net>, <hotuggs.net>, <sellcheapuggs.com>, <sheepskin-uggs.com>, <cheapuggsonline.net>, <cheap-uggs-online.com>, <uggs-forcheap.com>, <uggsonlineshop.net>, <saleuggs.net>, <uggs-online.net>, <discount-uggs.net>, <ugg-for-sale.com>,<uggsonlinestore.net>, <uggsalezone.com>, and <shopping-uggs.com> domain names. Finally, Respondent inserts a hyphen between Complainant’s mark and descriptive or generic terms in the <uggboots-home.net>, <buy-cheap-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shoes.net>, <buy-uggs.net>, <cheap-uggboots.net>, <ugg-boot-shoes.net>, <sale-ugg-boots.net>, <uggboots-zone.com>, <uggaustralia-boots.net>, <ugg-footwear.net>, <ugg-trade.com>, <sale-ugg.net>, <sell-ugg.net>, <uggboots-onsale.net>, <sheepskin-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shop.net>, <uggboots-site.com>, <discount-uggboots.net>, <ugg-supplier.com>, <cheap-uggs-online.com>, <uggboots-online.net>, <uggs-forcheap.com>, <uggs-online.net>, <ugg-mall.net>, <discount-uggs.net>, <ugg-for-sale.com>, <ugg-sales.net>, <uggboots-space.com>, and <shopping-uggs.com> domain names.
The Panel finds the addition of descriptive terms, generic terms, the letter “s,” hyphens, and the gTLDs “.com” and “.net” do not distinguish Respondent’s disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); 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); see also T.R. World Gym-IP, LLC v. D’Addio, FA 956501 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2007) (finding that the addition of the letter “s” to a registered trademark in a contested domain name is not enough to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s UGG mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case establishing Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The burden then shifts to Respondent to demonstrate it has rights or legitimate interests. See Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)). Prior panels have concluded a respondent’s failure to respond indicates the respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests. See 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.”). Despite Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Panel will evaluate the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts it has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its UGG mark in any way. Moreover, the WHOIS information lists “weng huangteng” as the registrant of the disputed domain names, which the Panel finds is not similar to any of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel finds Complainant’s assertions combined with the WHOIS registrant information indicates Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names 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 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).
Complainant contends Respondent uses its disputed domain
names to resolve to websites that claim to sell counterfeit versions of
Complainant’s products. Screen shots of
the resolving websites show images of boots and footwear that closely resemble
Complainant’s merchandise. Respondent’s
websites also prominently and frequently display Complainant’s UGG mark and
logo. In addition, these websites
purport to accept payment via PayPal and VISA and ship products purchased via
DHL Express and UPS. The Panel finds
Respondent most likely profits from this fraudulent scheme. Accordingly, the Panel concludes Respondent
uses the disputed domain names to sell counterfeit products, which does not
qualify as a bona fide offering of
goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Hewlett-Packard
Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium
As previously discussed, Respondent’s resolving websites prominently display Complainant’s UGG mark as well as images of goods that closely resemble Complainant’s official merchandise. The Panel finds Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant, which is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. Ballard, FA 146621 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2002) (stating that where the respondent copied the complainant’s website in order to steal account information from the complainant’s customers, that the respondent’s “exploitation of the goodwill and consumer trust surrounding the BLIZZARD NORTH mark to aid in its illegal activities is prima facie evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel previously found Respondent registered and is using 54 domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s UGG mark. In addition, the WHOIS information shows that Respondent registered all of the disputed domain names between July 2009 and December 2009. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Caterpillar Inc. v. Miyar, FA 95623 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2000) (finding that registering multiple domain names in a short time frame indicates an intention to prevent the mark holder from using its mark and provides evidence of a pattern of conduct); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Deiana, FA 339579 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2004) (“It is found and determined that Respondent is in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because Respondent registered the disputed domain names to prevent Complainant from reflecting its YAHOO! mark in the corresponding domain names. The registration of the [<ayhooo.com>, <ayhooo.net >, <ayhooo.org>, <ayhoooindia.com>, <ayhoookids.com>, <ayhooorealty.com>, <ayhooorealty.net>, <ayhoooshopping.com>, <ayhooo-uk.com>, and <searchayhooo.com>] domain names herein constitutes a pattern of registering trademark-related domain names in bad faith.”).
Additionally, the Panel finds Respondent uses the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users seeking Complainant’s products and official website to its competing website. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain names disrupt Complainant’s business, which is evidence of registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2 Vioxx.com, FA 124508 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s CELEBREX mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Complainant claims Respondent is intentionally attempting to
attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites, by creating a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s UGG mark as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites and products
offered on these sites. The Panel
previously found Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s UGG mark. Moreover,
Respondent displays Complainant’s mark and logo on its resolving websites in
order to profit from the sale of counterfeit versions of Complainant’s
products. Therefore, the Panel agrees
with Complainant and finds Respondent’s behavior constitutes registration and
use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Utensilerie Assoc. S.p.A. v. C & M, D2003-0159 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2003) (“The contents of the
website, offering Usag products, together with the domain name may create the
(incorrect) impression that Respondent is either the exclusive distributor or a
subsidiary of Complainant, or at the very least that Complainant has approved
its use of the domain name.”); see also
Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding
bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the
complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by
implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant).
Finally, the Panel finds Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant provides further evidence of Respondent’s registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. Ballard, FA 146621 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2002) (finding that where the complainant’s mark was appropriated at registration, and a copy of the complainant’s website was used at the domain name in order to facilitate the interception of the complainant’s customer’s account information, the respondent’s behavior evidenced bad faith use and registration of the domain name).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bestuggs.org>, <uggbootstore.net>, <uggsretailer.org>, <uggboots-home.net>, <uggssale.org>, <buy-cheap-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shoes.net>, <buy-uggs.net>, <cheap-uggboots.net>, <hotuggs.net>, <offeruggboots.net>, <topugg.net>, <ugg-boot-shoes.net>, <bestuggstore.net>, <uggbootspace.com>, <sale-ugg-boots.net>, <uggboots-zone.com>, <uggaustralia-boots.net>, <uggonlinesale.net>, <ugg-footwear.net>, <ugg-trade.com>, <sale-ugg.net>, <saleuggboots.net>, <sellcheapuggs.com>, <uggbootshop.net>, <sell-ugg.net>, <uggboots-onsale.net>, <sheepskin-uggs.com>, <uggboots-shop.net>, <cheapuggsonline.net>, <uggboots-site.com>, <discount-uggboots.net>, <ugg-supplier.com>, <cheap-uggs-online.com>, <purchaseuggboots.com>, <cheapestugg.net>, <uggbootstribal.com>, <uggboots-online.net>, <uggprovide.com>, <uggs-forcheap.com>, <uggbootshome.net>, <uggsonlineshop.net>, <uggbootsky.net>, <saleuggs.net>, <uggbootsleader.com>, <uggs-online.net>, <ugg-mall.net>, <discount-uggs.net>, <ugg-for-sale.com>, <ugg-sales.net>, <uggboots-space.com>, <uggsonlinestore.net>, <uggsalezone.com>, and <shopping-uggs.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: August 30, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum