Fitness Anywhere LLC v. zhenchun LIN
Claim Number: FA1107001396864
Complainant is Fitness Anywhere LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Omid A. Mantashi, California, USA. Respondent is zhenchun LIN (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <2011trxtraining.info>, <besttrxus.info>, <buytrxpropack.info>, <mytrx2011.info>, <mytrxtrainingsale.info>, <mytrxus.info>, <newtrx2011.info>, <newtrxfitness.info>, <newtrxtraining2011.info>, <newtrxtrainingonline.info>, <newtrxtrainingshop.info>, <newtrxus.info>, <nowtrx.info>, <thetrxus.info>, <trx11.info>, <trx2011.info>, <trx2011online.info>, <trxcheap.info>, <trxfitnessonline.info>, <trxforcekit.info>, <trxforcekits.info>, <trxforces.info>, <trxforcesshop.info>, <trxforus.info>, <trxnow.info>, <trxonsalenow.info>, <trxoutlets.com>, <trxpropacks.info>, <trxqq.info>, <trxs.info>, <trxsalenow.info>, <trxsaleonline.info>, <trxsaletoday.info>, <trxsbarely.info>, <trxsbeer.info>, <trxsbounce.info>, <trxsbound.info>, <trxshopnow.info>, <trxsitestore.com>, <trxsjump.info>, <trxsleap.info>, <trxsport.info>, <trxsstout.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainingonline.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainings.info>, <trxtm.info>, <trxtoday.info>, <trxtraining2011.info>, <trxtrainingsales.info>, <trxtrainingshoponline.info>, <trxtrainingshops.info>, <trxtrxus.info>, <trxtrxusnow.info>, <trxtrxusonline.info>, <trxtrxusshop.info>, <trxtrxussite.info>, <trxtrxusstore.info>, <trxtrxustoday.info>, <trxus.info>, <trxusa.info>, <trxusanow.info>, <trxusaonline.info>, <trxusashop.info>, <trxusastore.info>, <trxusatoday.info>, <trxusnow.info>, <trxusonline.info>, <trxusshop.info>, <trxussite.info>, <trxusstore.info>, and <trxustoday.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com 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 July 4, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 4, 2011.
On July 6, 2011, GoDaddy.com Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <2011trxtraining.info>, <besttrxus.info>, <buytrxpropack.info>, <mytrx2011.info>, <mytrxtrainingsale.info>, <mytrxus.info>, <newtrx2011.info>, <newtrxfitness.info>, <newtrxtraining2011.info>, <newtrxtrainingonline.info>, <newtrxtrainingshop.info>, <newtrxus.info>, <nowtrx.info>, <thetrxus.info>, <trx11.info>, <trx2011.info>, <trx2011online.info>, <trxcheap.info>, <trxfitnessonline.info>, <trxforcekit.info>, <trxforcekits.info>, <trxforces.info>, <trxforcesshop.info>, <trxforus.info>, <trxnow.info>, <trxonsalenow.info>, <trxoutlets.com>, <trxpropacks.info>, <trxqq.info>, <trxs.info>, <trxsalenow.info>, <trxsaleonline.info>, <trxsaletoday.info>, <trxsbarely.info>, <trxsbeer.info>, <trxsbounce.info>, <trxsbound.info>, <trxshopnow.info>, <trxsitestore.com>, <trxsjump.info>, <trxsleap.info>, <trxsport.info>, <trxsstout.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainingonline.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainings.info>, <trxtm.info>, <trxtoday.info>, <trxtraining2011.info>, <trxtrainingsales.info>, <trxtrainingshoponline.info>, <trxtrainingshops.info>, <trxtrxus.info>, <trxtrxusnow.info>, <trxtrxusonline.info>, <trxtrxusshop.info>, <trxtrxussite.info>, <trxtrxusstore.info>, <trxtrxustoday.info>, <trxus.info>, <trxusa.info>, <trxusanow.info>, <trxusaonline.info>, <trxusashop.info>, <trxusastore.info>, <trxusatoday.info>, <trxusnow.info>, <trxusonline.info>, <trxusshop.info>, <trxussite.info>, <trxusstore.info>, and <trxustoday.info> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On July 7, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 27, 2011 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@2011trxtraining.info, postmaster@besttrxus.info, postmaster@buytrxpropack.info, postmaster@mytrx2011.info, postmaster@mytrxtrainingsale.info, postmaster@mytrxus.info, postmaster@newtrx2011.info, postmaster@newtrxfitness.info, postmaster@newtrxtraining2011.info, postmaster@newtrxtrainingonline.info, postmaster@newtrxtrainingshop.info, postmaster@newtrxus.info, postmaster@nowtrx.info, postmaster@thetrxus.info, postmaster@trx11.info, postmaster@trx2011.info, postmaster@trx2011online.info, postmaster@trxcheap.info, postmaster@trxfitnessonline.info, postmaster@trxforcekit.info, postmaster@trxforcekits.info, postmaster@trxforces.info, postmaster@trxforcesshop.info, postmaster@trxforus.info, postmaster@trxnow.info, postmaster@trxonsalenow.info, postmaster@trxoutlets.com, postmaster@trxpropacks.info, postmaster@trxqq.info, postmaster@trxs.info, postmaster@trxsalenow.info, postmaster@trxsaleonline.info, postmaster@trxsaletoday.info, postmaster@trxsbarely.info, postmaster@trxsbeer.info, postmaster@trxsbounce.info, postmaster@trxsbound.info, postmaster@trxshopnow.info, postmaster@trxsitestore.com, postmaster@trxsjump.info, postmaster@trxsleap.info, postmaster@trxsport.info, postmaster@trxsstout.info, postmaster@trxsuspensiontrainingonline.info, postmaster@trxsuspensiontrainings.info, postmaster@trxtm.info, postmaster@trxtoday.info, postmaster@trxtraining2011.info, postmaster@trxtrainingsales.info, postmaster@trxtrainingshoponline.info, postmaster@trxtrainingshops.info, postmaster@trxtrxus.info, postmaster@trxtrxusnow.info, postmaster@trxtrxusonline.info, postmaster@trxtrxusshop.info, postmaster@trxtrxussite.info, postmaster@trxtrxusstore.info, postmaster@trxtrxustoday.info, postmaster@trxus.info, postmaster@trxusa.info, postmaster@trxusanow.info, postmaster@trxusaonline.info, postmaster@trxusashop.info, postmaster@trxusastore.info, postmaster@trxusatoday.info, postmaster@trxusnow.info, postmaster@trxusonline.info, postmaster@trxusshop.info, postmaster@trxussite.info, postmaster@trxusstore.info, and postmaster@trxustoday.info. Also on July 7, 2011, 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 August 1, 2011, 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 Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 <2011trxtraining.info>, <besttrxus.info>, <buytrxpropack.info>, <mytrx2011.info>, <mytrxtrainingsale.info>, <mytrxus.info>, <newtrx2011.info>, <newtrxfitness.info>, <newtrxtraining2011.info>, <newtrxtrainingonline.info>, <newtrxtrainingshop.info>, <newtrxus.info>, <nowtrx.info>, <thetrxus.info>, <trx11.info>, <trx2011.info>, <trx2011online.info>, <trxcheap.info>, <trxfitnessonline.info>, <trxforcekit.info>, <trxforcekits.info>, <trxforces.info>, <trxforcesshop.info>, <trxforus.info>, <trxnow.info>, <trxonsalenow.info>, <trxoutlets.com>, <trxpropacks.info>, <trxqq.info>, <trxs.info>, <trxsalenow.info>, <trxsaleonline.info>, <trxsaletoday.info>, <trxsbarely.info>, <trxsbeer.info>, <trxsbounce.info>, <trxsbound.info>, <trxshopnow.info>, <trxsitestore.com>, <trxsjump.info>, <trxsleap.info>, <trxsport.info>, <trxsstout.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainingonline.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainings.info>, <trxtm.info>, <trxtoday.info>, <trxtraining2011.info>, <trxtrainingsales.info>, <trxtrainingshoponline.info>, <trxtrainingshops.info>, <trxtrxus.info>, <trxtrxusnow.info>, <trxtrxusonline.info>, <trxtrxusshop.info>, <trxtrxussite.info>, <trxtrxusstore.info>, <trxtrxustoday.info>, <trxus.info>, <trxusa.info>, <trxusanow.info>, <trxusaonline.info>, <trxusashop.info>, <trxusastore.info>, <trxusatoday.info>, <trxusnow.info>, <trxusonline.info>, <trxusshop.info>, <trxussite.info>, <trxusstore.info>, and <trxustoday.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRX mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <2011trxtraining.info>, <besttrxus.info>, <buytrxpropack.info>, <mytrx2011.info>, <mytrxtrainingsale.info>, <mytrxus.info>, <newtrx2011.info>, <newtrxfitness.info>, <newtrxtraining2011.info>, <newtrxtrainingonline.info>, <newtrxtrainingshop.info>, <newtrxus.info>, <nowtrx.info>, <thetrxus.info>, <trx11.info>, <trx2011.info>, <trx2011online.info>, <trxcheap.info>, <trxfitnessonline.info>, <trxforcekit.info>, <trxforcekits.info>, <trxforces.info>, <trxforcesshop.info>, <trxforus.info>, <trxnow.info>, <trxonsalenow.info>, <trxoutlets.com>, <trxpropacks.info>, <trxqq.info>, <trxs.info>, <trxsalenow.info>, <trxsaleonline.info>, <trxsaletoday.info>, <trxsbarely.info>, <trxsbeer.info>, <trxsbounce.info>, <trxsbound.info>, <trxshopnow.info>, <trxsitestore.com>, <trxsjump.info>, <trxsleap.info>, <trxsport.info>, <trxsstout.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainingonline.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainings.info>, <trxtm.info>, <trxtoday.info>, <trxtraining2011.info>, <trxtrainingsales.info>, <trxtrainingshoponline.info>, <trxtrainingshops.info>, <trxtrxus.info>, <trxtrxusnow.info>, <trxtrxusonline.info>, <trxtrxusshop.info>, <trxtrxussite.info>, <trxtrxusstore.info>, <trxtrxustoday.info>, <trxus.info>, <trxusa.info>, <trxusanow.info>, <trxusaonline.info>, <trxusashop.info>, <trxusastore.info>, <trxusatoday.info>, <trxusnow.info>, <trxusonline.info>, <trxusshop.info>, <trxussite.info>, <trxusstore.info>, and <trxustoday.info> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <2011trxtraining.info>, <besttrxus.info>, <buytrxpropack.info>, <mytrx2011.info>, <mytrxtrainingsale.info>, <mytrxus.info>, <newtrx2011.info>, <newtrxfitness.info>, <newtrxtraining2011.info>, <newtrxtrainingonline.info>, <newtrxtrainingshop.info>, <newtrxus.info>, <nowtrx.info>, <thetrxus.info>, <trx11.info>, <trx2011.info>, <trx2011online.info>, <trxcheap.info>, <trxfitnessonline.info>, <trxforcekit.info>, <trxforcekits.info>, <trxforces.info>, <trxforcesshop.info>, <trxforus.info>, <trxnow.info>, <trxonsalenow.info>, <trxoutlets.com>, <trxpropacks.info>, <trxqq.info>, <trxs.info>, <trxsalenow.info>, <trxsaleonline.info>, <trxsaletoday.info>, <trxsbarely.info>, <trxsbeer.info>, <trxsbounce.info>, <trxsbound.info>, <trxshopnow.info>, <trxsitestore.com>, <trxsjump.info>, <trxsleap.info>, <trxsport.info>, <trxsstout.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainingonline.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainings.info>, <trxtm.info>, <trxtoday.info>, <trxtraining2011.info>, <trxtrainingsales.info>, <trxtrainingshoponline.info>, <trxtrainingshops.info>, <trxtrxus.info>, <trxtrxusnow.info>, <trxtrxusonline.info>, <trxtrxusshop.info>, <trxtrxussite.info>, <trxtrxusstore.info>, <trxtrxustoday.info>, <trxus.info>, <trxusa.info>, <trxusanow.info>, <trxusaonline.info>, <trxusashop.info>, <trxusastore.info>, <trxusatoday.info>, <trxusnow.info>, <trxusonline.info>, <trxusshop.info>, <trxussite.info>, <trxusstore.info>, and <trxustoday.info> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Fitness Anywhere LLC, uses the TRX mark in connection with its physical exercise instructional services and on its exercise products. Complainant owns trademark registrations for the TRX mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”):
Reg. No. 3,202,696 registered January 23, 2007 and
Reg. No. 3,384,871 registered February 19, 2008.
Respondent, zhenchun LIN, registered all of the disputed domain names on or after May 28, 2011. The <trxoutlets.com> and <trxtm.info> domain names resolve to a website that copies Complainant’s advertising copywriting and images without authorization and sells counterfeit replicas of Respondent’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 owns trademark registrations for the TRX mark with the USPTO:
Reg. No. 3,202,696 registered January 23, 2007 and
Reg. No. 3,384,871 registered February 19, 2008.
Panels have previously found that registering a mark with the USPTO secures complainant’s rights in the mark. See AOL LLC v. Interrante, FA 681239 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2006) (finding that where the complainant had submitted evidence of its registration with the USPTO, “such evidence establishes complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (finding trademark registration with the USPTO was adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Based on these prior decisions, the Panel holds that Complainant has proven its rights in the TRX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in this proceeding. The Panel further holds that a USPTO registration suffices even when Respondent lives or operates in another country. See 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 argues that Respondent’s disputed domain names all include Complainant’s TRX mark combined with generic or descriptive terms, such as “store,” “us,” “online,” “training,” and “outlets,” and the generic top-level domains (gTLDs) “.info” or “.com.” The Panel finds that adding generic or descriptive terms to Complainant’s mark does not change the essential character of the disputed domain names or prevent confusing similarity according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Sadler, FA 250236 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2004) (finding the addition of generic terms to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark in the respondent’s <shop4harrypotter.com> and <shopforharrypotter.com> domain names failed to alleviate the confusing similarity between the mark and the domain names). The Panel also determines that the gTLDs “.info” and “.com” do not distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”). The Panel thus holds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRX mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been met.
Complainant argues that Respondent does not possess rights in the disputed domain names. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) requires that Complainant establish a prima facie case against Respondent before Respondent has the burden to prove its rights and legitimate interests. In this instance, Complainant has adequately presented a prima facie case but Respondent has failed to respond. As a result, the Panel may assume that Complainant’s allegations are true in that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14b] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.’”); 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.”). The Panel elects, however, to consider the evidence in light of the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors in order to make a complete determination of whether Respondent has any rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. Complainant expressly denies that Respondent has any permission or authorization to use Complainant’s TRX mark. Based on these assertions and the lack of information identifying Respondent with the disputed domain names, including the WHOIS information that lists the registrant as “zhenchun LIN,” the Panel determines that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) as it is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. 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 RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail").
Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to host websites that mimic Complainant and attempt to pass themselves off as Complainant’s authentic website by using Complainant’s advertising copywriting and images. Complainant asserts that Respondent makes no effort to distinguish itself from Complainant and makes liberal use of Complainant’s TRX mark throughout the resolving websites. Complainant contends that Respondent attempts to create the impression that Respondent’s websites are actually Complainant’s in order to sell counterfeit replicas of Complainant’s products at the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that neither mimicking Complainant’s website to pass itself off as Complainant nor selling counterfeit products at the disputed domain names is a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Nokia Corp. v. Eagle, FA 1125685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 7, 2008) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the complainant in order to advertise and sell unauthorized products of the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium C.A., FA 105775 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2002) (“Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name [<hpmilenium.com>] to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s [HP] products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been met.
Complainant has presented screen shot evidence that Respondent is using the <trxoutlets.com> and <trxtm.info> domain names in relation to a website which advertises and purports to sell Complainant’s goods. Complainant contends that no business relationship between the parties exists that would authorize such sales of Complainant’s goods. The Panel finds that as the website appears to be offering Complainant’s goods, Internet users seeking Complainant’s products might be misled as to the authenticity of the products and purchase them from Respondent instead of Complainant. Further, the Panel finds that this result disrupts Complainant’s business and diminishes its sales, revealing Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <trxoutlets.com> and <trxtm.info> domain names as a competitor under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Surface Prot. Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between the complainant and the respondent, the respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt the complainant's business and create user confusion); see also Jerie v. Burian, FA 795430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2006) (concluding that the respondent registered and used the <sportlivescore.com> domain name in order to disrupt the complainant’s business under the LIVESCORE mark because the respondent was maintaining a website in direct competition with the complainant).
Complainant also asserts, and provides evidence to show, that Respondent’s use of the TRX mark in the <trxoutlets.com> and <trxtm.info> domain names is intended to attract Complainant’s customers. Complainant further contends that Respondent’s efforts to mimic Complainant’s site and pass itself off as Complainant causes consumer confusion in an attempt to profit from the sale of seemingly authentic, but actually counterfeit, goods. As a result, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s actions in this regard serve as evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <trxoutlets.com> and <trxtm.info> domain names according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a direct competitor of the complainant); see also World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t, Inc. v. Ringside Collectibles, D2000-1306 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (concluding that the respondent registered and used the <wwfauction.com> domain name in bad faith because the name resolved to a commercial website that the complainant’s customers were likely to confuse with the source of the complainant’s products, especially because of the respondent’s prominent use of the complainant’s logo on the site).
However, Complainant has merely presented arguments and accusations as to the remaining sixty-nine domain names without supplying the Panel with actual evidence of such use. Without evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration use the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) as to the remaining domain names. See Graman USA Inc. v. Shenzhen Graman Indus. Co., FA 133676 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2003) (finding that general allegations of bad faith without supporting facts or specific examples do not supply a sufficient basis upon which the panel may conclude that the respondent acted in bad faith); Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (finding that the complainant failed to establish that respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because mere assertions of bad faith are insufficient for a complainant to establish Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied as to the <trxoutlets.com> and <trxtm.info> domain names. Furthermore, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) as to the remaining disputed domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED as to the <trxoutlets.com> and <trxtm.info> domain names.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <trxoutlets.com> and <trxtm.info> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED as to the <2011trxtraining.info>, <besttrxus.info>, <buytrxpropack.info>, <mytrx2011.info>, <mytrxtrainingsale.info>, <mytrxus.info>, <newtrx2011.info>, <newtrxfitness.info>, <newtrxtraining2011.info>, <newtrxtrainingonline.info>, <newtrxtrainingshop.info>, <newtrxus.info>, <nowtrx.info>, <thetrxus.info>, <trx11.info>, <trx2011.info>, <trx2011online.info>, <trxcheap.info>, <trxfitnessonline.info>, <trxforcekit.info>, <trxforcekits.info>, <trxforces.info>, <trxforcesshop.info>, <trxforus.info>, <trxnow.info>, <trxonsalenow.info>, <trxpropacks.info>, <trxqq.info>, <trxs.info>, <trxsalenow.info>, <trxsaleonline.info>, <trxsaletoday.info>, <trxsbarely.info>, <trxsbeer.info>, <trxsbounce.info>, <trxsbound.info>, <trxshopnow.info>, <trxsitestore.com>, <trxsjump.info>, <trxsleap.info>, <trxsport.info>, <trxsstout.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainingonline.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainings.info>, <trxtoday.info>, <trxtraining2011.info>, <trxtrainingsales.info>, <trxtrainingshoponline.info>, <trxtrainingshops.info>, <trxtrxus.info>, <trxtrxusnow.info>, <trxtrxusonline.info>, <trxtrxusshop.info>, <trxtrxussite.info>, <trxtrxusstore.info>, <trxtrxustoday.info>, <trxus.info>, <trxusa.info>, <trxusanow.info>, <trxusaonline.info>, <trxusashop.info>, <trxusastore.info>, <trxusatoday.info>, <trxusnow.info>, <trxusonline.info>, <trxusshop.info>, <trxussite.info>, <trxusstore.info>, and <trxustoday.info> domain names.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <2011trxtraining.info>, <besttrxus.info>, <buytrxpropack.info>, <mytrx2011.info>, <mytrxtrainingsale.info>, <mytrxus.info>, <newtrx2011.info>, <newtrxfitness.info>, <newtrxtraining2011.info>, <newtrxtrainingonline.info>, <newtrxtrainingshop.info>, <newtrxus.info>, <nowtrx.info>, <thetrxus.info>, <trx11.info>, <trx2011.info>, <trx2011online.info>, <trxcheap.info>, <trxfitnessonline.info>, <trxforcekit.info>, <trxforcekits.info>, <trxforces.info>, <trxforcesshop.info>, <trxforus.info>, <trxnow.info>, <trxonsalenow.info>, <trxpropacks.info>, <trxqq.info>, <trxs.info>, <trxsalenow.info>, <trxsaleonline.info>, <trxsaletoday.info>, <trxsbarely.info>, <trxsbeer.info>, <trxsbounce.info>, <trxsbound.info>, <trxshopnow.info>, <trxsitestore.com>, <trxsjump.info>, <trxsleap.info>, <trxsport.info>, <trxsstout.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainingonline.info>, <trxsuspensiontrainings.info>, <trxtoday.info>, <trxtraining2011.info>, <trxtrainingsales.info>, <trxtrainingshoponline.info>, <trxtrainingshops.info>, <trxtrxus.info>, <trxtrxusnow.info>, <trxtrxusonline.info>, <trxtrxusshop.info>, <trxtrxussite.info>, <trxtrxusstore.info>, <trxtrxustoday.info>, <trxus.info>, <trxusa.info>, <trxusanow.info>, <trxusaonline.info>, <trxusashop.info>, <trxusastore.info>, <trxusatoday.info>, <trxusnow.info>, <trxusonline.info>, <trxusshop.info>, <trxussite.info>, <trxusstore.info>, and <trxustoday.info> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: August 12, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page