Salt Life Holdings, LLC v. SLI Inc.
Claim Number: FA1208001458570
Complainant is Salt Life Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Elizabeth G. Borland of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is SLI Inc (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue is <saltlifeilluminations.com>, <saltlifeilluminations.net>, <saltlifeilluminations.org>, and <saltlifeilluminations.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
David A. Einhorn appointed as panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 16, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 17, 2012.
On August 17, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <saltlifeilluminations.com>, <saltlifeilluminations.net>, <saltlifeilluminations.org>, and <saltlifeilluminations.info> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 August 20, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 10, 2012 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@saltlifeilluminations.com, postmaster@saltlifeilluminations.net, postmaster@saltlifeilluminations.org, and postmaster@saltlifeilluminations.info. Also on August 20, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 September 13, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David A. Einhorn 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’s Allegations
a) Complainant has rights in the SALT LIFE mark.
i. The mark is used in connection with clothing and apparel.
ii. Complainant is the owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) trademark registrations for the SALT LIFE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,959,429 registered June 7, 2005).
iii. The <saltlifeilluminations.com>, <saltlifeilluminations.net>, <saltlifeilluminations.org>, and <saltlifeilluminations.info> domain names are confusingly similar to the SALT LIFE mark. Each of the domain names employs merely adds the word “illuminations” to the SALT LIFE mark and deletes the space.
iv. In response to an Interlocutory Order, Complainant stated that “Complainant does not contend that the term ‘illuminations’ is descriptive of Complainant’s products or services”.
b) Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <saltlifeilluminations.com>, <saltlifeilluminations.net>, <saltlifeilluminations.org>, and <saltlifeilluminations.info> domain names.
i. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
ii. The <saltlifeilluminations.info> domain name resolves to websites that promotes Respondent’s lighted metal sculptures.
iii. The <saltlifeilluminations.com>, <saltlifeilluminations.net>, and <saltlifeilluminations.org> domain names are not being used by Respondent.
c) Respondent registered and is using the <saltlifeilluminations.com>, <saltlifeilluminations.net>, <saltlifeilluminations.org>, and <saltlifeilluminations.info> domain names in bad faith.
i. Respondent diverts, for commercial gain, Internet users to the disputed domain names by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark.
ii. Respondent had constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SALT LIFE mark prior to the registration of the <saltlifeilluminations.com>, <saltlifeilluminations.net>, <saltlifeilluminations.org>, and <saltlifeilluminations.info> domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel notes that Respondent registered the <saltlifeilluminations.com> and <saltlifeilluminations.net> domain names on June 3, 2012 and that Respondent registered the <saltlifeilluminations.org> and <saltlifeilluminations.info> domain names on June 4, 2012.
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."
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.
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.”).
Complainant asserts that it has rights in the SALT LIFE mark. Complainant provides the Panel with evidence of its ownership of USPTO trademark registrations for the SALT LIFE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,959,429 registered June 7, 2005). The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SALT LIFE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <saltlifeilluminations.com>, <saltlifeilluminations.net>, <saltlifeilluminations.org>, and <saltlifeilluminations.info> domain names are confusingly similar to the SALT LIFE mark. Each of the disputed domain names adds the term “illuminations” and omits the space.
However, Complainant affirmatively admits that it “does not contend that the term ‘illuminations’ is descriptive of Complainant’s products or services”. Based upon this admission, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s domain names, which all include the term “illuminations”, are not confusingly similar to Complainant’s SALT LIFE mark. Compare Salt Life Holdings, LLC v. Burgess, FA 1439701 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 25, 2012), wherein inter alia, the Panel found the domain names <saltlifephotography.com> and <saltlifephotog.com> confusingly similar to complainant Salt Life Holdings, LLC’s marks where complainant had produced evidence showing that it ran photography competitions to promote its goods and services. Here, Complainant not only produces no evidence of the relevance of the term “illuminations” to its goods and services, but affirmatively denies any such connection.
Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel therefore does not need to analyze the second and third elements of the Policy.
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <saltlifeilluminations.com>, <saltlifeilluminations.net>, <saltlifeilluminations.org>, and <saltlifeilluminations.info> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.
David A. Einhorn, Panelist
Dated: October 12, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page