Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. CHAIYOT ONPUTTHA / PLRPRO
Claim Number: FA1603001667883
Complainant is Home Depot Product Authority, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Justin S. Haddock of King & Spalding LLP, Texas, United States. Respondent is CHAIYOT ONPUTTHA / PLRPRO (“Respondent”), Denmark.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <homedepotdehumidifier.com>, registered with eNom, 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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 29, 2016; the Forum received payment on March 29, 2016.
On March 30, 2016, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <homedepotdehumidifier.com> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 March 31, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 20, 2016 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@homedepotdehumidifier.com. Also on March 31, 2016, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 21, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Complainant uses the HOME DEPOT mark in connection with home improvement retail store services and related goods and services. Complainant registered the HOME DEPOT mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,314,081, registered February 1, 2000), which establishes rights in the mark.
2. Respondent’s <homedepotdehumidifier.com>, domain name, registered in December 2014, is confusingly similar to the HOME DEPOT mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while eliminating spacing between words, while adding the generic term “dehumidifier” which has relation to products Complainant sells, and adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
3. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <homedepotdehumidifier.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <homedepotdehumidifier.com> domain name. Rather, the domain name resolves to a website containing hyperlinks which resolve to direct competitors of Complainant and from which Respondent presumably nets pay-per-click profits.
4. Respondent is using the <homedepotdehumidifier.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the resolving website serves as a disruption of Complainant’s legitimate business purposes. Further, Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the HOME DEPOT mark and Complainant’s rights therein because of the mark’s fame, notoriety, and multiple trademark registrations.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the HOME DEPOT mark. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <homedepotdehumidifier.com> domain name, and that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
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(f), 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 (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.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the <homedepotdehumidifier.com> domain name. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the <homedepotdehumidifier.com> domain name disrupts Complainant’s legitimate business purposes pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because of the inclusion of hyperlinks to competing products. Where a respondent has attempted to divert Internet users to competitors of a complainant via hyperlinks related to a complainant’s legitimate business, such use constitutes bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Univ. of Texas Sys. v. Smith, FA 1195696 (Forum July 7, 2008) (finding that using the resolving website to divert Internet users to the complainant’s competitors constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Complainant asserts that, due to its extensive list of trademark registrations, Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HOME DEPOT mark when Respondent registered the <homedepotdehumidifier.com> domain name. The Panel agrees and concludes that Respondent registered the <homedepotdehumidifier.com> domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Forum Jan. 11, 2008) ("That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").
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 <homedepotdehumidifier.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: May 13, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page