Hubbell Incorporated v. The Battery Center Inc aka Battery Center
Claim Number: FA1404001554777
Complainant is Hubbell Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Roberta S. Bren of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P., Virginia, USA. Respondent is The Battery Center Inc a/k/a Battery Center (“Respondent”), represented by M. Kathleen Hart of Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C., Georgia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net>, registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
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.
Nathalie Dreyfus as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 17, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 18, 2014.
On April 21, 2014, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names are registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 April 21, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 12, 2014 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@duallitebatteries.com, postmaster@duallitebattery.com, postmaster@dual-litebattery.com, postmaster@duallite-hubbellbattery.com, postmaster@duallite-hubbellbattery.net, postmaster@duallitereplacementbatteries.com, postmaster@dual-litereplacementbatteries.com, postmaster@dual-litereplacementbatteries.net, postmaster@duallitereplacementbattery.com, postmaster@hubbell-duallitebattery.com, postmaster@hubbell-duallitebattery.net. Also on April 21, 2014, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 12, 2014.
On May 14, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Nathalie Dreyfus 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
a) Complainant is an international manufacturer of electrical and electronic products for a broad range of non-residential and residential construction, industrial and utility applications. Complainant operates its primary website at <hubbell.com>.
b) Complainant has rights in the DUAL-LITE trademark, used in connection with emergency electrical lighting and batteries. Complainant also has rights in the HUBBELL trademark, used in connection with electrical wiring and lighting.
c) Respondent’s <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s DUAL-LITE trademark. The disputed domain names all incorporate Complainant’s DUAL-LITE trademark, and the <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> incorporate Complainant’s HUBBELL trademark as well.
d) Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.
e) Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent contends that Complainant and Respondent reached a settlement and Respondent has consented to transfer the disputed domain names in accordance with Complainant’s petition.
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.
Respondent explains in its Response that it consents to transfer the <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names to Complainant. Thus, the Panel could decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the domain names. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
However, the Panel highlights that Complainant has not explicitly consented to the transfer of the disputed domain names without a decision on the merits. Moreover, the “consent-to-transfer” approach can become a way for cybersquatters to avoid adverse findings against them. In Graebel Van Lines, Inc. v. Texas Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 1195954 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2008), the Panel considered that although Respondent has admitted in his response to the complaint of Complainant that it was ready to offer the transfer without inviting the decision of the Panel in accordance with the Policy, the facts of the case drove the Panel to the view that the transfer of the domain name deserved to be along with the findings in accordance with the Policy.
Therefore, the Panel decides to analyze the case under the elements of the UDRP, rather than ordering the immediate transfer of the <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names.
· Reg. No. 1936597 for “HUBBELL” registered on November 21, 1995 (renewed);
· Reg. No. 1019302 for “HUBBELL” registered on September 02, 1975 (renewed);
· Reg. No. 1015231 for “HUBBELL” registered on July 08, 1975 (renewed);
· Reg. No. 1334057 for “DUAL-LITE” registered on May 07, 1985 (renewed);
· Reg. No. 1751136 for “DUAL-LITE” registered on February 09, 1993 (renewed);
· Reg. No. 1748239 for “DUAL-LITE” registered on January 26, 1993 (renewed).
The Panel finds that these trademark registrations adequately demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Fitz-James (CT2341-RSC) Cititrust Grp. Ltd, FA 571918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2005) see also Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s DUAL-LITE trademark. Complainant states that the disputed domain names all incorporate Complainant’s DUAL-LITE trademark, and the <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> incorporate Complainant’s HUBBELL trademark as well.
The Panel finds that the addition of a generic term such as “battery”, “batteries” and “replacement” to a trademark in a disputed domain name does not sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name from the trademark. 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 trademark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered trademark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The Panel notes that some of the domain names remove the hyphen that exists in Complainant’s DUAL-LITE trademark: <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net>. The Panel also notes that other domain names insert hyphens in various places. The Panel finds that the removal or addition of a hyphen is irrelevant for the purposes of confusing similarity analysis. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy).
Further, the Panel finds that the gTLDs “.com” and “.net” used in the domain names at issue are technical resources. Thus it does not constitute a prominent portion in the disputed domain name in determining confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademarks. Therefore, the addition of the gTLDs “.com” and “.net” in the disputed domain names does not have any impact on the avoidance of confusing similarity.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s DUAL-LITE trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
For the same reasons, the Panel finds that the domain names <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HUBBELL trademark.
The first condition required to be satisfied under paragraph 4(a)(i) above is therefore fulfilled.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names.
Respondent has set forth no evidence, nor are there other facts in the record, to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. Complainant contends that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s HUBELL or DUAL-LITE trademark in the <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names and that the disputed domain name is neither a nickname of Respondent nor otherwise identified with or related to Respondent. Indeed, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as“The Battery Center Inc” or “Battery Center”, two names which the Panel determines have no facial association to the disputed domain names. The Panel accordingly finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and thus lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Educ. Broad. Corp. v. DomainWorks Inc., FA 882172 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <thirteen.com> domain name based on all evidence in the record, and the respondent did not counter this argument in its response). See also 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).
Therefore, because Respondent was not authorized by Complainant to use the DUAL-LITE or HUBBELL trademarks, and neither the WHOIS information nor the other evidence on record indicates otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant claims that the <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names resolve to parked websites. The Panel finds that a directory of pay-per-click links is not a bona fide offering of goods or services according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that redirecting Internet users interested in Complainant’s products and services to its own website for commercial gain was not 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 also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant). 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)).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names resolve to parked websites featuring third-party links to Complainant’s competitors.
The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and that the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
The Panel finds that Respondent failed to respond on that point. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain names duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The second condition required to be satisfied under paragraph 4(a)(ii) above is therefore fulfilled.
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names in bad faith. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s registration of eleven domain names, all containing Complainant’s trademarks, constitutes a pattern of bad faith registration. Past panels have indeed found bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where a respondent registered multiple infringing domain names in the case. See EPA European Pressphoto Agency B.V. v. Wilson, D2004-1012 (WIPO Feb. 9, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration of the <epa-photo.com>, <epaphoto.com> and <epaphotos.com> domain names was sufficient to constitute a pattern pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). See also Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assocs., FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names that infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because Respondent registered multiple infringing domain names in the instant case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent is disrupting Complainant’s business by using the disputed domain names to compete with Complainant. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the <dual-litebattery.com> domain name to sell products that compete with Complainant.
The Panel notes that the other ten disputed domain names resolve to websites with links that appear to be promoting products and services that compete with Complainant.
Both uses described above have been found to constitute a bad faith disruption 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 trademark 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 Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names).
The Panel notes that Respondent generates click-through fees from the previously mentioned third-party links. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to operate directory websites advertising products and services offered by Complainant’s competitors. The use of Complainant’s trademarks within the disputed domain names creates a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship of, or affiliation with, the resolving websites and featured links. Respondent attempts to capitalize on this confusion through the receipt of click-through fees. The Panel finds that such registration and use is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because Respondent is using the disputed domain names to compete with Complainant.
Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the <dual-litebattery.com> domain name to sell products that compete with Complainant, which is evidence of bad faith. Past panels have found that using a confusingly similar domain name to operate a competing business demonstrates bad faith via attraction for commercial gain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the<dual-litebattery.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent is using the disputed domain name to sell products in competition with Complainant.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the <duallitebatteries.com>, <duallitebattery.com>, <dual-litebattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.com>, <duallite-hubbellbattery.net>, <duallitereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.com>, <dual-litereplacementbatteries.net>, <duallitereplacementbattery.com>, <hubbell-duallitebattery.com>, and <hubbell-duallitebattery.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nathalie Dreyfus, Panelist
Dated: May 20, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page