optionsXpress Holdings, Inc. v. Peter Smith
Claim Number: FA1605001675477
Complainant is optionsXpress Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Laura M. Franco of Winston & Strawn LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Peter Smith (“Respondent”), Isle of Man.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <ooptionexpress.com>, <ooptionsexpress.com>, <ooptionxpress.com>, <oppionsxpress.com>, <optiinexpress.com>, <optiinsexpress.com>, <optiinxpress.com>, <optiionexpress.com>, <optiionsexpress.com>, <optiionxpress.com>, <optinnexpress.com>, <optinnsexpress.com>, <optinnxpress.com>, <optinoexpress.com>, <optinosexpress.com>, <optinoxpress.com>, <optinsxpress.com>, <optiobnsxpress.com>, <optioinsxpress.com>, <optionasxpress.com>, <optionaxpress.com>, <optionbsxpress.com>, <optiondsxpress.com>, <optiondxpress.com>, <optionnexpress.com>, <optionnsexpress.com>, <optionsaxpress.com>, <optionscpress.com>, <optionscxpress.com>, <optionsdxpress.com>, <optionsexxpress.com>, <optionssxpress.com>, <optionsxcpress.com>, <optionsxepress.com>, <optionsxopress.com>, <optionsxppress.com>, <optionsxpreass.com>, <optionsxpresa.com>, <optionsxpresas.com>, <optionsxpressa.com>, <optionsxpressd.com>, <optionsxpresd.com>, <optionsxpresds.com>, <optionsxprs.com>, <optionsxzpress.com>, <optionszpress.com>, <optioonexpress.com>, <optioonsexpress.com>, <optioonxpress.com>, <optiopnexpress.com>, <optiopnsexpress.com>, <optiopnxpress.com>, <optiuonsxpress.com>, <optnexpress.com>, <optnsexpress.com>, <optnxpress.com>, <optoinexpress.com>, <optoinsexpress.com>, <optoinxpress.com>, <optoionsxpress.com>, <optoonexpress.com>, <optoonsexpress.com>, <optoonxpress.com>, <optrionsxpress.com>, <opttionexpress.com>, <opttionsexpress.com>, <opttionxpress.com>, <optuionsxpress.com>, <optuonsxpress.com>, <optyionexpress.com>, <optyionsexpress.com>, <optyionxpress.com>, <poptionsxpress.com>, <ptionxpress.com>, <optionsxppess.com>, <ioptionsxpress.com>, and <optiionsxpress.com>, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 17, 2016; the Forum received payment on May 18, 2016.
On May 20, 2016, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ooptionexpress.com>, <ooptionsexpress.com>, <ooptionxpress.com>, <oppionsxpress.com>, <optiinexpress.com>, <optiinsexpress.com>, <optiinxpress.com>, <optiionexpress.com>, <optiionsexpress.com>, <optiionxpress.com>, <optinnexpress.com>, <optinnsexpress.com>, <optinnxpress.com>, <optinoexpress.com>, <optinosexpress.com>, <optinoxpress.com>, <optinsxpress.com>, <optiobnsxpress.com>, <optioinsxpress.com>, <optionasxpress.com>, <optionaxpress.com>, <optionbsxpress.com>, <optiondsxpress.com>, <optiondxpress.com>, <optionnexpress.com>, <optionnsexpress.com>, <optionsaxpress.com>, <optionscpress.com>, <optionscxpress.com>, <optionsdxpress.com>, <optionsexxpress.com>, <optionssxpress.com>, <optionsxcpress.com>, <optionsxepress.com>, <optionsxopress.com>, <optionsxppress.com>, <optionsxpreass.com>, <optionsxpresa.com>, <optionsxpresas.com>, <optionsxpressa.com>, <optionsxpressd.com>, <optionsxpresd.com>, <optionsxpresds.com>, <optionsxprs.com>, <optionsxzpress.com>, <optionszpress.com>, <optioonexpress.com>, <optioonsexpress.com>, <optioonxpress.com>, <optiopnexpress.com>, <optiopnsexpress.com>, <optiopnxpress.com>, <optiuonsxpress.com>, <optnexpress.com>, <optnsexpress.com>, <optnxpress.com>, <optoinexpress.com>, <optoinsexpress.com>, <optoinxpress.com>, <optoionsxpress.com>, <optoonexpress.com>, <optoonsexpress.com>, <optoonxpress.com>, <optrionsxpress.com>, <opttionexpress.com>, <opttionsexpress.com>, <opttionxpress.com>, <optuionsxpress.com>, <optuonsxpress.com>, <optyionexpress.com>, <optyionsexpress.com>, <optyionxpress.com>, <poptionsxpress.com>, <ptionxpress.com>, <optionsxppess.com>, <ioptionsxpress.com>, and <optiionsxpress.com> 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 May 24, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 13, 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@ooptionexpress.com, postmaster@ooptionsexpress.com, postmaster@ooptionxpress.com, postmaster@oppionsxpress.com, postmaster@optiinexpress.com, postmaster@optiinsexpress.com, postmaster@optiinxpress.com, postmaster@optiionexpress.com, postmaster@optiionsexpress.com, postmaster@optiionxpress.com, postmaster@optinnexpress.com, postmaster@optinnsexpress.com, postmaster@optinnxpress.com, postmaster@optinoexpress.com, postmaster@optinosexpress.com, postmaster@optinoxpress.com, postmaster@optinsxpress.com, postmaster@optiobnsxpress.com, postmaster@optioinsxpress.com, postmaster@optionasxpress.com, postmaster@optionaxpress.com, postmaster@optionbsxpress.com, postmaster@optiondsxpress.com, postmaster@optiondxpress.com, postmaster@optionnexpress.com, postmaster@optionnsexpress.com, postmaster@optionsaxpress.com, postmaster@optionscpress.com, postmaster@optionscxpress.com, postmaster@optionsdxpress.com, postmaster@optionsexxpress.com, postmaster@optionssxpress.com, postmaster@optionsxcpress.com, postmaster@optionsxepress.com, postmaster@optionsxopress.com, postmaster@optionsxppress.com, postmaster@optionsxpreass.com, postmaster@optionsxpresa.com, postmaster@optionsxpresas.com, postmaster@optionsxpressa.com, postmaster@optionsxpressd.com, postmaster@optionsxpresd.com, postmaster@optionsxpresds.com, postmaster@optionsxprs.com, postmaster@optionsxzpress.com, postmaster@optionszpress.com, postmaster@optioonexpress.com, postmaster@optioonsexpress.com, postmaster@optioonxpress.com, postmaster@optiopnexpress.com, postmaster@optiopnsexpress.com, postmaster@optiopnxpress.com, postmaster@optiuonsxpress.com, postmaster@optnexpress.com, postmaster@optnsexpress.com, postmaster@optnxpress.com, postmaster@optoinexpress.com, postmaster@optoinsexpress.com, postmaster@optoinxpress.com, postmaster@optoionsxpress.com, postmaster@optoonexpress.com, postmaster@optoonsexpress.com, postmaster@optoonxpress.com, postmaster@optrionsxpress.com, postmaster@opttionexpress.com, postmaster@opttionsexpress.com, postmaster@opttionxpress.com, postmaster@optuionsxpress.com, postmaster@optuonsxpress.com, postmaster@optyionexpress.com, postmaster@optyionsexpress.com, postmaster@optyionxpress.com, postmaster@poptionsxpress.com, postmaster@ptionxpress.com, postmaster@optionsxppess.com, postmaster@ioptionsxpress.com, and postmaster@optiionsxpress.com. Also on May 24, 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 June 22, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant has rights in the OPTIONSXPRESS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it holds a trademark registration for the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) under registry no. 2,618,175, registered Sept. 10, 2002.
Respondent’s myriad disputed domains contain intentional misspellings of the OPTIONSXPRESS mark as well as the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which create confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has received no permission from Complainant to use the OPTIONSXPRESS mark in connection with domain registrations or in any other context and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent has not operated any of the seventy-seven disputed domains with a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, seventy-five of the seventy-seven domain names redirect Internet users to <marketsworld.com>, a financial trading services site which directly competes with Complainant. The remaining two disputed domains, <oppionsxpress.com> and <optionsxpres.com>, resolve to GoDaddy parked pages, from which Respondent presumably receives click-through fees.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent has a history of bad faith domain registrations, imputing bad faith in the instant case per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Respondent’s disputed domain names were registered and used for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or to commercially profit per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) from redirecting Internet users or from pay-per-click links. Lastly, Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant and Complainant’s rights with respect to the OPTIONSXPRESS mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns a USPTO registered trademark for the OPTIONSXPRESS mark.
The at-issue domain names were all registered after Complainant acquired trademark rights in its OPTIONSXPRESS mark.
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent’s at-issue domain names resolve either to a website that directly competes with Complainant or to parking pages which presumably generate click-through fees.
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 at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the OPTIONSXPRESS mark with the USPTO, as well as its registration of OPTIONSXPRESS with numerous other trademark authorities worldwide, are each sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”).
Respondent’s seventy-seven at-issue domain names contain misspellings of Complainant’s OPTIONSXPRESS mark with the “.com” gTLD appended thereto. The trivial differences between Complainant’s mark and each at-issue domain name are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel concludes that each domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OPTIONSXPRESS trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015)(“The relevant comparison then resolves to the trademark, TWITCH, with the term, ‘titch,’ which, as can be readily seen, merely removes the letter ‘w’ from the trademark. In spite of that omission the compared integers remain visually and aurally very similar and so Panel finds them to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy.”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain names and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of each of the at-issue domain names. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of any of the at‑issue domain names.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain names identifies the domain names’ registrant as “Peter Smith” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the any of the at-issue domain names. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by any at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). SeeCoppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent uses the vast majority of the confusingly similar domain names to direct Internet users to <marketsworld.com>, a financial trading services website which directly competes with Complainant. The remaining two disputed domains, <oppionsxpress.com> and <optionsxpres.com>, address GoDaddy parked webpages from which Respondent presumably receives click-through fees. The later mentioned domain names previously directed visitors to the <marketsworld.com> website. Significantly, Respondent’s use of each of the at-issue domain names is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain names were all registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below Policy ¶ 4(b) bad faith circumstances are present and there is additional non-Policy ¶ 4(b) evidence from which the Panel may independently conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First, Respondent has a history of bad faith domain registrations suggesting Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Indeed, some of Respondent’s prior UDRP cases were cases where Complainant sought relief. See TD Ameritrade IP Company, Inc. v. Peter Smith, FA1412001593710 (Forum Jan. 11, 2015); see also Forex IP Holdings, Ltd. V. Markets World/ Peter Smith, Bobs Limited, D2014-0422 (WIPO); see also, optionsXpress Holdings, Inc. v. Peter Smith/Bob’s Limited, FA 1407001572331 (Forum Sept. 3, 2014) (domains resolved to the same website at issue here).
Second, the fact that the domain names each direct Internet users to either Complainant’s competition or pay-per-click links demonstrates that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. jeonggon seo, FA1411001591638 (Forum January 16, 2015) (finding that where the complainant operated in the computer industry and the respondent used the disputed domain name to offer competing computer related links, the respondent was disrupting the complainant’s business offerings in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
Third, each domain name in Respondent’s array of confusingly similar at-issue domain names exemplifies typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name wishing and hoping that Internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the targeted trademark, or will otherwise confuse a misspelled trademark laden domain name with a targeted trademark. Respondent simply rearranges, adds, and/or deletes characters in Complainant’s trademark in various immaterial ways to form the second level of each of the confusingly similar at-issue domain name. Respondent’s typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Finally, the fact that Respondent has been previously subject to adverse orders under the UDRP in cases brought by Complainant and is involved in typosquatting in the instant case each necessarily entail that the Respondent actually knew of Complainant’s trademark interest in OPTIONSXPRESS prior to registering the at-issue domain names. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the OPTIONSXPRESS trademark further indicates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ooptionexpress.com>, <ooptionsexpress.com>, <ooptionxpress.com>, <oppionsxpress.com>, <optiinexpress.com>, <optiinsexpress.com>, <optiinxpress.com>, <optiionexpress.com>, <optiionsexpress.com>, <optiionxpress.com>, <optinnexpress.com>, <optinnsexpress.com>, <optinnxpress.com>, <optinoexpress.com>, <optinosexpress.com>, <optinoxpress.com>, <optinsxpress.com>, <optiobnsxpress.com>, <optioinsxpress.com>, <optionasxpress.com>, <optionaxpress.com>, <optionbsxpress.com>, <optiondsxpress.com>, <optiondxpress.com>, <optionnexpress.com>, <optionnsexpress.com>, <optionsaxpress.com>, <optionscpress.com>, <optionscxpress.com>, <optionsdxpress.com>, <optionsexxpress.com>, <optionssxpress.com>, <optionsxcpress.com>, <optionsxepress.com>, <optionsxopress.com>, <optionsxppress.com>, <optionsxpreass.com>, <optionsxpresa.com>, <optionsxpresas.com>, <optionsxpressa.com>, <optionsxpressd.com>, <optionsxpresd.com>, <optionsxpresds.com>, <optionsxprs.com>, <optionsxzpress.com>, <optionszpress.com>, <optioonexpress.com>, <optioonsexpress.com>, <optioonxpress.com>, <optiopnexpress.com>, <optiopnsexpress.com>, <optiopnxpress.com>, <optiuonsxpress.com>, <optnexpress.com>, <optnsexpress.com>, <optnxpress.com>, <optoinexpress.com>, <optoinsexpress.com>, <optoinxpress.com>, <optoionsxpress.com>, <optoonexpress.com>, <optoonsexpress.com>, <optoonxpress.com>, <optrionsxpress.com>, <opttionexpress.com>, <opttionsexpress.com>, <opttionxpress.com>, <optuionsxpress.com>, <optuonsxpress.com>, <optyionexpress.com>, <optyionsexpress.com>, <optyionxpress.com>, <poptionsxpress.com>, <ptionxpress.com>, <optionsxppess.com>, <ioptionsxpress.com>, and <optiionsxpress.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 23, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page