Primerica, Inc. v. Wendy Webbe / Ancient Holdings, LLC
Claim Number: FA1607001685468
Complainant is Primerica, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jonathan Sniderman, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Wendy Webbe / Ancient Holdings, LLC (“Respondent”), Saint Kitts and Nevis.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <primerica.net>, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 26, 2016; the Forum received payment on July 26, 2016.
On July 27, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <primerica.net> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 July 27, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 16, 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@primerica.net. Also on July 27, 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 August 19, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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
Complainant has rights in the PRIMERICA mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,468,618, registered Dec. 8, 1987). Respondent’s <primerica.net> domain name is identical to the PRIMERICA mark because it adds the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.net” to the mark to form the disputed domain.
Respondent is not commonly known by the <primerica.net> domain name because she is not authorized to use the PRIMERICA mark or otherwise known by the domain name. Respondent fails to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the domain resolves to a parked page containing click-through links, including links to competitors of Complainant and unrelated content.
Respondent uses the <primerica.net> domain name in bad faith because the domain resolves to a parked page containing click-through links, including links to competitors of Complainant and unrelated content. Respondent registered the <primerica.net> domain name in bad faith because she did so with constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PRIMERICA mark based upon Complainant’s longstanding use of the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Primerica, Inc., has rights in the PRIMERICA mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,468,618, registered Dec. 8, 1987). Respondent’s <primerica.net> domain name is identical to the PRIMERICA mark.
Respondent, Wendy Webbe / Ancient Holdings, LLC, registered the <primerica.net> domain name on April 21, 1998.
Respondent is not commonly known by the <primerica.net> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use the PRIMERICA mark. Respondent fails to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the domain resolves to a parked page containing click-through links, including links to competitors of Complainant and unrelated content.
Respondent uses the <primerica.net> 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.”).
Complainant has rights in the PRIMERICA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO even though Respondent does not operate in the United States. See Viber Media S.à r.l. v. Kristaps Sirmais / SIA "FUN FACTORY", FA 1626671 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (“Accordingly, even though Respondent reportedly resides in Latvia, the Panel finds that Complainant’s USPTO registration is sufficient under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <primerica.net> domain name is identical to the PRIMERICA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it adds the gTLD “.net” to the mark.
Respondent is not commonly known by the <primerica.net> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the PRIMERICA mark. The WHOIS information lists “Wendy Webbe” as Registrant of the <primerica.net> domain name. See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Respondent fails to use the <primerica.net> domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), because the domain resolves to a parked page containing click-through links, including links to competitors of Complainant and unrelated content. See Royal Bank of Scotland Grp plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not 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), as the respondent presumably earned “click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites).
Respondent uses the <primerica.net> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); see also Ass’n of Junior Leagues Int’l Inc. v. This Domain Name My Be For Sale, FA 857581 (Forum Jan. 4, 2007) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to maintain a pay-per-click site displaying links unrelated to the complainant and to generate click-through revenue suggested bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Respondent registered the <primerica.net> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PRIMERICA mark. Therefore, Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. See Bluegreen Corp. v. eGo, FA 128793 (Forum Dec. 16, 2002) (finding bad faith where the method by which the respondent acquired the disputed domain names indicated that the respondent was well aware that the domain names incorporated marks in which the complainant had rights).
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 <primerica.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: August 30, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page